the us government is increasing federal aid to tackle the pandemic in the hot spot states of new york, california and washington. meanwhile partisan disputes at the us senate have been holding up the swift approval of a huge coronavirus stimulus bill. britons have been warned to take advice on social distancing seriously while stricter measures could be imposed. the prime minister borisjohnson said a lockdown, like those seen in other european countries, was being considered and he said that people ignoring advice we re he said that people ignoring advice were putting lives at risk. the president of the international olympic committee, thomas bach, says this year's games in tokyo won't be cancelled but could be postponed in light of the outbreak. there's been mounting pressure from professional sporting bodies for organisers to take action. a decision‘s expected within four weeks.

now on bbc news — it's hardtalk with stephen sackur. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sakal welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sakai. the worldwide spread of coronavirus and its significant negative impact on the global economy represents a powerful illustration of the perils of forecasting. countries in lockdown, financial markets in turmoil, this isn't the way 2020 was supposed to pan out. an opportune moment than for myjust pan out. an opportune moment than for my just today. pan out. an opportune moment than for myjust today. acclaimed writer and businesswoman margaret heffernan, to publish a book challenging the fed association —— fetishisation of forecasting. is it is time to embrace uncertainty?

margaret heffernan, welcome to hardtalk. i think we would all like to believe that as human knowledge expands, particularly with technology, our ability to forecast the future accurately improves. is it your contention that that is not true? is in my contention that it isn't true. definitely, our capacity to forecast many things has improved, specifically the weather, although it may not often feel that way. but i think what has happened is that our expectation of that improvement was continuously possible, that we would eventually end up with perfect forecasting. i

think that has not been proved and in fact, you know, both physicists and experts in forecasting will say that there is ineradicable uncertainty in human systems and natural systems and that while we become very attracted by all of the stuff we can predict like a gps can tell you, roughly, roughly, how long it will take you to drive home for example. can't predict whether a cat is going to run in the road and stop everybody and hold up traffic. it can't predict if there is going to bea car can't predict if there is going to be a car crash in front of you. there are these aspects of uncertainty that are always going to be with us. sure, but probability is important. if we are to use forecasting to make big, strategic decisions about our own individual futures and our collective futures as society and as a species, then knowing what is probably going to happen and the percentage of likelihood, all of the things that

go into forecasting and the results of forecasting, they are very important. that are important but i would say two things. first of all, even professional mathematician say that they find probability counterintuitive and hard to grasp. if it's hard for them, it is harder for the rest of us. i think the other thing is that, the real experts in forecasting say that they think that with all the best they can deliver, they can be reasonably accurate about 400 days out. the rest of us, who don't have all of that training and success and stayed up that training and success and stayed up until that time to spend mulling over it, they reckon the window is about 150 days. so when it comes to many things in our lives like where to live, what kind ofjob to do, what kind of industry to be in, actually, things have to come to terms with the fact that life changes all of the time in ways that we can't protect and uncertainty is a feature of human existence. you

say uncertainty is a feature of humanity and is not a more obvious time right now. you wrote this book, uncharted, well before coronavirus became at the preoccupation of the world but here we. do you regard what is happening right around the world today with notjust what is happening right around the world today with not just the healthcare crisis being faced by populations around the world but also the economic breakdown we see happening in front of our hours. do you see that as some kind of indication of your proposition?” would hate to say that because it suggests that i am kind of happy about it. are not free moment trying to suggest that. i'm really not happy about it but i would say that when i started working on the book about four years ago, the argument around uncertain he was definitely not going my way and many people i talk to just didn't get it, just didn't buy it and thought i was flat wrong. because they felt that particularly with the rise of ai and big data... two absolutely. we are

going to know everything and we are indeed muscles of the universe. i think it now, i would love that the cogent arguments in my book change everybody‘s mind but i think the truth is, the facts have changed everybody‘s mind. i think what interests me about coronavirus is the way different governments are handling the challenge and the future challenge in very different ways. 0nce future challenge in very different ways. once they grasp the seriousness of the situation, they committed to, i think what one senior official described as, the elimination of the virus as a threat to the chinese government within months. they issued their forecasts of what would happen and use the central government power to deliver it. maybe they're onto something?” think what is interesting is that what they were able to do was to harness a lot of resources very, very fast. i think most people saw the photographs of hospitals being built overnight. and i think in the western world, we have become so

entranced by what i think of as the myth of infinite efficiency that all of those resources, we been cutting back and cutting back and cutting back and cutting back and cutting back and cutting back and cutting back and efficiency is fantastic when you know exactly what you're going to need. but once you accept that there is some uncertainty in the system, you have to accept that you also need robustness, in other words, you need extra, it is slack in the system. so that when the unexpected occurs, you have the resources to throw at it. i think what is really startling about this pandemic is that we having confront the fact that we served efficiency with such devotion that we cut that robustness out of our systems, just a really trivial example — in all retailers and manufacturers have gone over tojust razor retailers and manufacturers have gone over to just razor thin retailers and manufacturers have gone over tojust razor thin margins of time and money and shipping. which everybody thought was the

miracle of modern industrialisation. just in time is weight no chemists have hand sanitisers at the moment because they didn't have any extra anywhere. and i think we have so fallen into this trap of efficiency thinking that we have forgotten there is always going to be surprises. coming back to your idea that forecasting can take us into dangerous areas, it can be misleading and positively counter productive. a lot of people doing forecasting today about where this pandemic is going to go, about how many people will ultimately be affected. the one, the chancellor in germany said that she believes up to 70% of her own german population could end up infected with coronavirus. are you saying that politicians should avoid all about forecasting all together?” politicians should avoid all about forecasting all together? i think it would be helpful to avoid that forecasting because again, she didn't attach a probability to it and it may well be that by next week, she adjusts her numbers. what good forecasters do is they are

co nsta ntly good forecasters do is they are constantly adjusting their numbers and also, what does that mean? 70% are infected? and also, what does that mean? 70% are infected ? some and also, what does that mean? 70% are infected? some of those people will experience absolutely nothing, we know that kids may be infected by experience no symptoms. in other people, it will be excruciatingly painful but not life—threatening and in some people, we know it will be life—threatening. that is a very broad spectrum which the 70% doesn't really illustrate in any kind of meaningful way at all. let us look yonder coronavirus and think deeply about what forecasting depends upon. it does depend upon increasingly access to huge amounts of data, big data is the phrase. and the analysis of the data, using algorithms, we all know now that that is the foundation stone of artificial intelligence and is being used increasingly across governments, business — it almost sounds to me like you're saying don't trust artificial intelligence, get stuff wrong as much of the stuff right.

artificial intelligence, get stuff wrong as much of the stuff rightm does get a lot wrong. it does get a lot wrong. first of all, we know that it lot wrong. first of all, we know thatitis lot wrong. first of all, we know that it is highest which is why amazonia couldn't figure out an ai to do gender neutral hiring and after two years, to do gender neutral hiring and after two yea rs, gave to do gender neutral hiring and after two years, gave up. we know that in systems where it's been used to try and predict who will need social benefits or who is eligible for parole but it makes really gross errors. we know that it often makes what would be if people operated the same way, illegal errors, in terms of who is deciding who is eligible for a job and who isn't. in regards to the errors, why not look at some of the extraordinary successes of ai? you have to look at the way social media platforms work to know that they are extraordinarily successful in targeting and reaching out and predicting behaviours. yes, it is quite of interesting though isn't it because although cambridge and neil whitaker —— analytica, another one the brexit votes, and

ashley don't know who won and how. suddenly they got the victory and then all of a sudden it wasn't so cool to boast about it but you actually can't prove that it was dammit that what it —— won it. when it comes to pandemics and experts in a pandemics told me, every epidemic is different. they said, the dataset, and equals one. you can try next trucked from the data general rules about what is helpful but what you know is that this is not like the last time. -- n=1. again, you're pointing to the negatives but i'm thinking of the positives, notjust ai but also genetics. as they were building a genetic database about all of humanity and the more we know about yours and my genetic make up, my election to lung disease or

yours. for my likely lifespan based on my genetic health, the more that can inform forecasts about public health strategies. this isn'tjust about coronavirus but all forms of healthcare going forward, isn't that exciting? is absolutely exciting and i would be the last person in the world to say that we don't want that knowledge but i think you have to keep recognising that even what genetic testing will tell us is around probabilities and not certainties. there is a huge amounts that we don't understand. example, we know that identical twins have identical dna but we also know that if one of those twins gets multiple sclerosis, if genetics was destiny, the other one would too. in fact, the other one would too. in fact, the likelihood of the other one getting it is just 30%. let's the likelihood of the other one getting it isjust 30%. let's be honest, we still don't know what accou nts honest, we still don't know what accounts for the fact that some children who were born blonde turn... they had turns brown and

submit it doesn't. we don't have a genetic explanation for something as simple as that. it's not that we shouldn't keep learning, of course we should keep learning, but we have to recognise that genetics are not destiny, that much happens to people in their lives and that if we start treating genetics as destiny, we treating genetics as destiny, we treat as certain something which remains ambiguous. 0k, treat as certain something which remains ambiguous. ok, so both on the abilities of ai remains ambiguous. ok, so both on the abilities of al to change our world and allow us to forecast and the ability of genetics to allow us to forecast, you're a sceptic. what you make and of the rise of what has been called a breed of super forecasters, and interestingly, the chief adviser to the current prime minister in the uk, borisjohnson, thatis minister in the uk, borisjohnson, that is dominic cummings, he advised all of us journalists recently to stop pondering and listen to the super forecasters. he referred stop pondering and listen to the superforecasters. he referred to wa nt superforecasters. he referred to want particular individual in the

united states, a political scientist and psychologist, the founder of super forecasting. do you and psychologist, the founder of superforecasting. do you believe in superforecasting. do you believe in super forecasting? i interviewed philip for my book because i'm very captivated by his notion and i agreed broadly with what he said but i think dominic cummings may be missing a few details here in that where tetlock describes super forecasters, they are people with very open minds and not ideological and are constantly reviewing it, advising their opinions. i don't anybody genuinely believes that that describes dominic cummings. you think he is harnessing super forecasting for a much more i logical projects? us and i think the heart and soul of super forecasting and tetlock writes about this brilliantly is that these are pretty ordinary people so they not kind of genetically supreme, shall we say,

who read very widely, keep a very open mind, a super curious about the world, notice all kinds of small things and, you know, don't come to a conclusion overnight. and they are willing to recognise when they get it wrong. isn't one of the key problems with your notion that we need to respect and even embrace some certainty that it encourages endless argument and division about what is happening in the world today and more than anything else, i'm thinking of climate change. it seems to be one of the most important ways the public mind has changed on climate change is an issue is because of forecasts. forecasts of trajectory, where we are going in terms of the planet was make dangerous warning but your advice to us all is, don't get hung up with forecasts because they may well be wrong, don't take them seriously. i think there is a really important distinction to be

made here which is we can know some things, andi made here which is we can know some things, and i would include climate change on this, and academics, are generally certain. we know that epidemics will continue to happen, we know that climate change is real, let mejust finish we know that climate change is real, let me just finish if i we know that climate change is real, let mejust finish if i may... everything else you've just said, how can we take seriously the fact you decided you know climate change forecasts are accurate. you've questioned so much else. we know the preponderance of evidence says climate change is real. we know the bank of england says there will be further crashes. we know that epidemics will continue to be of each of human existence. that's generally certain but, and it's an important but, it's specifically ambiguous which is to say we can't forecast which forests are going to catch fire next year, which houses are going to be flooded next year or even this summer and we can't say why or when the next banking crush will come we know it will happen and

therefore, instead of hoping to plan, assuming that these things won't exist, we do much better to prepare on the assumption that they will exist. it's just you, prepare on the assumption that they will exist. it'sjust you, margaret heffernan, write this in the book uncharted. " the hard truth is so much in life always will be unpredictable. we are better off accepting that the calling for propaganda." now, the climate change deniers describe the forecasts of doom for the planet unless we take dramatic action on reducing emissions, they described that as propaganda. it seems to me you're making an argument which climate change deniers for one group could well ta ke change deniers for one group could well take hold of and advantage of. i think actually, the problem is different from the one you've described. i think because we can't predict exactly as it were, month by month, how climate change will play out, we've been stalled and done nothing for 30 years and i think if

we had been willing to accept this is generally true, specifically ambiguous, but it represents such a huge threat that we can't afford to wait for the perfect data, if we had done that, we would be far more advanced in our fight against climate change than we are today and i think this obsession that we have to have the perfect plan before we can walk outside the door, i think this holds us back from doing the things we need to do and the things we could do and a perfect example of this is the coalition for epidemic preparedness which although governments weren't terribly keen yea rs governments weren't terribly keen years ago, started up saying actually, because we know these things are going to happen, we need to start now putting in place the things that will need when they do. again, it's problematic because you develop this idea of peritonitis and being imaginative and creative about the different range of possible futures one needs to consider. which

speaks to probability. of course, i get all that and on one level it's commonsense but on another level, if you are in government, you can't afford to be investing in the preparatory infrastructure for a whole range of options because by definition some of those options will never come to pass on all the infrastructure you've invested in and the special measures you've taken will have been a waste of money and utterly redundant. i'm not saying you invest in everything obviously, that would be nonsense, but for example, after the banking crisis, what did we do? we make the banks keep more capital so when they we re banks keep more capital so when they were hit by shop, that we could not forecast, when they were hit by shocks they would be more stable. in other words we did exactly what i'm talking about which is, we said we don't know when the next crash will come, you don't know what will cause it, let's invest capital and making sure these institutions are more sta ble sure these institutions are more stable and one reason why today. market is going mad and will do for

weeks to come, one reason the banks are stable is because of what we did then and all i'm saying is, you can ta ke then and all i'm saying is, you can take the same attitude to other things when you know they are generally certain and specifically ambiguous and be better prepared and some people, places too. what extraordinary influential sector of 21st—ce ntu ry life extraordinary influential sector of 21st—century life and culture that you seem to have a downer on, see as a malign influence, is big tech. yes. you see the more we subcontract our thinking, yes. you see the more we subcontract ourthinking, ouranalysis, yes. you see the more we subcontract our thinking, our analysis, our future projection and prediction of what the world is going to become two machines, the more we are rendering ourselves incapable of independent thought. and you seem to be saying big tech is encouraging us to allow them to make the key decisions in the future because it serves their self—interest. you see them as very malign. yes, it's

ironic because i ran tech companies further years and i have a lot of technology but i don't really love what it's become and i think actually what's happened in silicon values, the whole business model based on big data, if we had all the data in the world about you, we can predict what you want and that's how we make money. they can make life better for you is there we make money. they can make life betterfor you is there position. well, we can definitely sell you more stuff, let's put it that way. as we know everything about you, we print can predict what you want to make money out of you by doing that. and what's happened is, it doesn't work, it doesn't work the way eve ryo ne work, it doesn't work the way everyone hoped and as a consequence, asa everyone hoped and as a consequence, as a consequence you are seeing this shift to, let's use all sorts of conditioning tools, some kind of carrot and some sticks to make you do what we want you to do because actually we can't predict it. is it really though robbing you of agency because you are suggesting it is but at the same time i got a smartphone in my pocket which is a window to

all of the world's knowledge. it gives me, it empowers me in a sense to get away from traditional hierarchies, it gives me more of a voice in the world, notjust leave it billions of other people. isn't that something to be celebrated? certainly the tech ceos who seem to have fallen out because you have fallen out with think so. 0ne have fallen out because you have fallen out with think so. one of them, john bruni, says tech is overwhelmingly positive force in the world for one reason, anyone with an internet connection has all the world's knowledge of their think chips, digital ology truly gives us freedom. well, i would absolutely argue with that. for example, what we can already see is that it's really damaging our power of concentration. we can see that the more you use gps, the less spatial awareness you have. we can see that we are becoming so used to destruction that we can't actually sit down and read books for more than five minutes before we had to jump up than five minutes before we had to jump up and do some. the truth of

the matter is, all new inventions have a positive side at a negative side. and we have a huge deluge of propaganda coming at us from silicon valley while at the same time realising that our ability for example to have conversations just like this, face—to—face, not through a machine, that is profoundly limited. i know kids today who can't actually communicate with each other face—to—face. they can't do interviews for universities for jobs because actually have never packed estate because they never needed it to. i don't think that is a trivial loss. what you are saying overall seems to be a very important about human agency and whether we are actually gaining or losing as we progress through the 21st century. i just want to end with the thought that goes back to your earlier books about wilful blindness, when you talk away —— about the way

organisations, groups and communities, even individuals, they see bad stuff happening but often these days expect stay quiet about it and you refer to everything from bankers during the financial crisis of 07— bankers during the financial crisis of 07- 082 bankers during the financial crisis of 07— 082 people involved in the occupation of the rafa. and i think you alluded to feminism and some of the things women put up within their individual lives. since you wrote the book, we've had metoo. does that give you hope in this sense, human beings are beginning to confront wilful blindness? yes. and i also think human beings have an phenomenal capacity to experiment, to invent, to explore and in many ways what this book is saying is, don't rely on forecasts to tell you what to do. think for yourself, look around for yourself. have conversations, take risks. invent different things, explore by yourself because actually human agency is what has created all the best things in our world today. and

we need to cherish it and protected and not let it be taken from us by people who purport to know exactly what is going to happen tomorrow. very interesting note and on. margaret heffernan, thank you so much for being on the hardtalk. my pleasure. thank you. thanks a lot. hello there. for this upcoming week, it looks like much of the country will be fine and settled with some sunshine thanks to high pressure over the baltic states but we will have this weather front affecting the north—west corner of the country, bringing strong winds and some persistent and at times heavy rain to the north—west of scotland. eventually weakening and sinking southwards across the country

on thursday and then introducing colder northerly winds to all areas by the end of the week but for much of this week, it will be dry thanks to that area of high pressure, certainly and wales and we will have that rain in the north—west and it continues to be chilly as well. as we start monday, is going to be a cold one, thanks to clear skies and light winds, a widespread frost away to the north—west with some breeze and cloud. frost could be hard in places and we could see mist and fog as well as the winds will lighter. but it does mean it's a chilly start to this morning but there should be plenty of sunshine, certainly for england and wales. for the north—west of scotland, this weather front bringing up weeks of rain to the northern and western isles at the cloud pushing into scotland and northern ireland through the day. it will be windy here as well with local gales, a breezier day further south although you have all that sunshine which will be hazy at times, it shouldn't feel too bad with temperatures reaching highs 12 or 13 degrees, but always cooler around

some southern or eastern coasts. as we head through sunday night, cloudy and windy, outbreaks of rain across this north—west corner really piling up across the outer hebrides and north—west highlands it won't be a cold night like it will be further south for england and wales. a bit of a repeat performance for tuesday. england and wales largely dry, with some sunshine, albeit a bit hazy at times. more cloud generally for scotland and northern ireland and it stays windy with that rain really starting to pile up across the northern and western isles in particular. we also import some slightly milder air from the south, temperatures reaching 14—15 degrees in england and wales. the pressure pattern for wednesday, little change. the high pressure keeps things largely settled for england and wales, that weather front bringing generally more cloud to scotland and northern ireland, will start to weaken as it south—east so there'll be spots of rain on it. further south again, quite mild, temperatures further south again, quite mild, temperatures 11—14 degrees. but the milder air doesn't last.

it gets squeezed out with new areas of high pressure building over the atlantic. it will bring northerly winds right across the shores. so it will be settling down towards the end of the week but turning colder for all. some sunshine but also wintry showers across the north of the uk on the northerly wind.

this is bbc news i'm james reynolds. our top stories: president trump confirms funding for three states worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic — but the senate fails to back a $1 trillion stimulus plan for the us economy. spain bars most foreigners from entry for the next month, as restrictions tighten even further across europe. the uk prime minister warns of tougher measures if social distancing advice isn't followed and lives are put at risk. the olympic flame is already injapan — but hopes the games will go ahead look set to be extinguished. and new ways of worship and religious gathering — including the live streamed barmitzvah.