2 ms·
> those measures must be scientifically rigorous, and based on the expertise of public health professionals. This claim ("must be scientifically rigorous") isn
by The_Amp_Walrus 7y ago
> those measures must be scientifically rigorous, and based on the expertise of public health professionals.
This claim ("must be scientifically rigorous") isn't backed up by any further argument in the article, and I think that it's required to take the rest of the piece seriously. How could anybody make a scientific statement about the efficacy of mass surveillance? It's not possible to do a randomised control trial, and as far as I know the only data point we have is China.
- smichel17 7y agoYou could trial it in a smaller community before rolling it out nationwide, is what I can think of off the top of my head.
- The_Amp_Walrus 7y agoI think that's a reasonable thing to do under normal circumstances. There are currently 27k confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the USA, and I expect that to double or more in the next 5 days (increase in infected, wider testing), so I don't think a small pilot is a reasonable thing to do under current circumstances.