I agree with points from the parent comment, but more so from you. It's good to have experts who've rigorously studied historical practices and their outcomes;

I agree with points from the parent comment, but more so from you. It's good to have experts who've rigorously studied historical practices and their outcomes; we can learn many things about which practices work best, and what mathematical relationships they reveal. But history is not an accurate predictor of the future, and theory is only a stepping stone for better testing (such as Great Britain's theory for herd immunity, which was a ground breaking theoretical approach to dealing with a pandemic). I think the most effective approach, which adds to your argument, is ensemble modelling from numerous, independent researchers from many fields. This is akin to how many people guessing at the number of gumballs in a container at the fair will average to the correct amount, while any single guess will not. There is a Freakonomics episode, Superpredictors, which demonstrates the use of this statistical approach for anticipating the outcome of voting in foreign politics.