20 ms·
What Ioannidis is advocating is to do nothing until we have scientific certainty of what the correct decision should be, and only then act. What he's not taking
by ajnin 7y ago
What Ioannidis is advocating is to do nothing until we have scientific certainty of what the correct decision should be, and only then act. What he's not taking into account is that the situation is unfolding right now, and if "do nothing" turns out not to have been the correct decision then you can't go back and change that. If we overreact and cause 20% unemployment for the next year, then a harm has been caused, but if we underreact and 20 million people die, then another harm would have been caused. In the face of this alternative, with not enough data to know the probability of outcome #2, but with enough to know that it can happen, then I think it is rational to choose the route that most surely avoids it.
- wwweston 7y ago> if we under-react and 20 million people die, then another harm would have been caused And it's worth noting if anything on the order of millions of people die, then there going to be economic impacts -- that's a hell of a demand crater and productivity shock.
- Gibbon1 7y agoWorst case. Instead of quickly developing herd immunity, the US ends up with persistent low level outbreaks over two to three years like the 1918 flu. If that happens the rest of the world will quarantine us.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoWhat are you trying to say? If the rest of the world would develop hard immunity, they would have no need to quarantine you.
- Gibbon1 7y agoAssume they don't, assume they manage to stop community spread of the disease instead. Then they don't have herd immunity.