The UK's official government science advisors could tell ministers that their plans for dealing with Covid-19 were absurd, but they were not allowed to tell the public this — and they were used to give an air of scientific legitimacy to the absurd plans.

I think that science officials in the US are more independent than in the UK, and that this problem is less here. But it must have been difficult for an official who is in principle allowed to state per own views to the public to disagree publicly with the bully when that last was president.

*Politicians who delay climate action must live with consequences, says [doctor in charge of environmental health at WHO].*

It should not come as a surprise that this is so, but it is good to see it stated openly.

The Tory minister in charge of how homeless people are treated claims that homelessness is a "choice".

That is not true in Britain today — the forms of state aid and support that helped prevent homelessness have been cut so much that many people are destitute.

If any model's skin color could be altered at will in photos, would that be unfair to non-white models, or would it eliminate one of the sources and mechanisms of prejudice?

I don't know the answer, but I think it is a question that calls for an answer supported by careful thought, evidence, and reasons.

A Briton has been put on the sex offender list for dressing up in all-covering black costume with a full-face mask and lying down to "writhe" on the ground.

The court ordered him not to own such a costume, and not to own a mask that covers even part of the face, on pain of imprisonment. Does this sentence him to Covid-19?

This decision seems to say that the bounds of crime are defined by other people's imagination. It cannot be just to imprison anyone on grounds that other people can so easily twist.

Simply being put on the sex offender list might directly render the convicted man unemployed and/or homeless.