4 ms·

Here's more random stream of consciousness about this: > Pareto Mitigation: An evidence-based approach I love how this uses "evidence-based" as a dogwhistle f

Here's more random stream of consciousness about this: > Pareto Mitigation: An evidence-based approach I love how this uses "evidence-based" as a dogwhistle followed by proposing an approach without providing any sort of evidence about the efficacy of the approach. > Those who have lost their jobs tend to be those workers who are in a lower socio-economic bracket and have jobs that do not allow one to “work from home”. This is presented without evidence. I think there's a reasonable chance this is the case, but many essential businesses/industries employ primarily lower socio-economic classes so who knows. This is just presented like you should agree with it. It's also not clear that those that are more disadvantaged are actually worse off here. There has been a very large increase in the amount and accessibility of unemployment benefits. There seems to be excessive use of bolding random segments of sentences. I don't know if this is just a stylistic thing, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. On suicides, it seems like most of the argument should be verifiable from data (i.e. by its claims, we should be able to see an actual increase in suicide deaths). Is that data not available yet? > A preventable decline in preventative care Even the (supposedly evidence-based) proposed approach would likely lead to exactly the same decline in preventative care. This error is repeated throughout the document where there's this idea that the changes that we've seen are due to lockdown and will just go away otherwise (except, of course, for when the change is positive and, clearly, the not-quite-lockdown approach recommended would continue that positive change). > Be wary of “hero culture” This is maybe the strangest section. Why does this just talk about a hero culture related to real scientists? Do we think that people are more likely to think some nerdy scientist is a hero rather than our heroic manly president? This seems like it should be a point in support of lockdown to me (tbh, it seems like it shouldn't be a point at all, it's just an attempt to discredit experts). > The Soul of the Country is at Stake OMG. I skipped this in first skim. Yeah, this makes me think I've wasted my time even thinking about this thing, this is clearly a plea to the emotions of a specific subset of the population. I'm done.

cjhopman 6y ago
> This error is repeated throughout the document where there's this idea that the changes that we've seen are due to lockdown and will just go away otherwise For these, it could be good to compare what has happened in countries or areas with different responses to these. I.e compare sweden vs norway.
ryankemper 6y ago
Well, being the author I am certainly biased, but I don't think you've wasted your time :) Thanks for the feedback. I think the dog-whistle part is quite true. I will need to circle back and add citations where I can. Particularly given that one of the thematic elements is that the lockdown is not based upon evidence. > There seems to be excessive use of bolding random segments of sentences. I don't know if this is just a stylistic thing, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I was worried about this being distracting. I think particularly bolding segments within a sentence is definitely distracting, so I will (eventually) try to clean that up. > On suicides, it seems like most of the argument should be verifiable from data (i.e. by its claims, we should be able to see an actual increase in suicide deaths). Is that data not available yet? As far as I know it's not, but I'm not entirely sure where to go looking for weekly suicide data. I've only been able to find data over much longer intervals. This is where being an actual expert would probably help! :P > this is clearly a plea to the emotions of a specific subset of the population Just to bite of a piece of this before I conclude here, I personally think that a shift to censorship on such a wide scale is absolutely something to raise a bit of moral panic about. The new usage of the term "disinformation" has hit a point of Orwellian double-speak.
ryankemper 6y ago
> This is maybe the strangest section. Why does this just talk about a hero culture related to real scientists? Do we think that people are more likely to think some nerdy scientist is a hero rather than our heroic manly president? This seems like it should be a point in support of lockdown to me (tbh, it seems like it shouldn't be a point at all, it's just an attempt to discredit experts). Sorry to bombard you with replies, but I realized I never addressed this. I think you might have a different idea of what "hero" means, basically all I meant is that we tend to elevate these figures (Fauci in this case) up as "heroes" and therefore act like they are infallible and thus you cannot express an opinion that contradicts them. That is what I was arguing against. It's not about "hero" in the sense of, like, what a young child would imagine a hero is. So in the sense I'm using it, people totally do view the "nerdy scientist" (Fauci) as a hero. And I understand why they do. > This seems like it should be a point in support of lockdown to me (tbh, it seems like it shouldn't be a point at all, it's just an attempt to discredit experts) No, it's not discrediting them, it's just saying: evaluate policies and statements on their merits, not based on simply who said them. I hope that makes sense. Thanks again for all your thoughtful feedback. You clearly put time into it (and a good bit of frustration, understandably :P)
- shkkmo 6y ago
  > basically all I meant is that we tend to elevate these figures (Fauci in this case) up as "heroes" and therefore act like they are infallible and thus you cannot express an opinion that contradicts them. That is what I was arguing against. What you should do is take the time and effort to educate yourself before contradicting them, (such as about basic things like how herd immunity interacts with R0 in a pandemic) and you should present caveats and disclaimers that are online with your own lack of experience, expertise and knowledge. There might potentially valuable insights in your article, but their value is overshadowed by the way you present all your ignorance with confidence and surity.

cjhopman 6y ago

> This error is repeated throughout the document where there's this idea that the changes that we've seen are due to lockdown and will just go away otherwise For these, it could be good to compare what has happened in countries or areas with different responses to these. I.e compare sweden vs norway.

ryankemper 6y ago

Well, being the author I am certainly biased, but I don't think you've wasted your time :) Thanks for the feedback. I think the dog-whistle part is quite true. I will need to circle back and add citations where I can. Particularly given that one of the thematic elements is that the lockdown is not based upon evidence. > There seems to be excessive use of bolding random segments of sentences. I don't know if this is just a stylistic thing, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I was worried about this being distracting. I think particularly bolding segments within a sentence is definitely distracting, so I will (eventually) try to clean that up. > On suicides, it seems like most of the argument should be verifiable from data (i.e. by its claims, we should be able to see an actual increase in suicide deaths). Is that data not available yet? As far as I know it's not, but I'm not entirely sure where to go looking for weekly suicide data. I've only been able to find data over much longer intervals. This is where being an actual expert would probably help! :P > this is clearly a plea to the emotions of a specific subset of the population Just to bite of a piece of this before I conclude here, I personally think that a shift to censorship on such a wide scale is absolutely something to raise a bit of moral panic about. The new usage of the term "disinformation" has hit a point of Orwellian double-speak.

ryankemper 6y ago

> This is maybe the strangest section. Why does this just talk about a hero culture related to real scientists? Do we think that people are more likely to think some nerdy scientist is a hero rather than our heroic manly president? This seems like it should be a point in support of lockdown to me (tbh, it seems like it shouldn't be a point at all, it's just an attempt to discredit experts). Sorry to bombard you with replies, but I realized I never addressed this. I think you might have a different idea of what "hero" means, basically all I meant is that we tend to elevate these figures (Fauci in this case) up as "heroes" and therefore act like they are infallible and thus you cannot express an opinion that contradicts them. That is what I was arguing against. It's not about "hero" in the sense of, like, what a young child would imagine a hero is. So in the sense I'm using it, people totally do view the "nerdy scientist" (Fauci) as a hero. And I understand why they do. > This seems like it should be a point in support of lockdown to me (tbh, it seems like it shouldn't be a point at all, it's just an attempt to discredit experts) No, it's not discrediting them, it's just saying: evaluate policies and statements on their merits, not based on simply who said them. I hope that makes sense. Thanks again for all your thoughtful feedback. You clearly put time into it (and a good bit of frustration, understandably :P)

shkkmo 6y ago
> basically all I meant is that we tend to elevate these figures (Fauci in this case) up as "heroes" and therefore act like they are infallible and thus you cannot express an opinion that contradicts them. That is what I was arguing against. What you should do is take the time and effort to educate yourself before contradicting them, (such as about basic things like how herd immunity interacts with R0 in a pandemic) and you should present caveats and disclaimers that are online with your own lack of experience, expertise and knowledge. There might potentially valuable insights in your article, but their value is overshadowed by the way you present all your ignorance with confidence and surity.