3 ms·

the intent of the lockdown measures was to reduce peak need to just below hospital capacity and no more. Reducing it further only increases the duration of lock

the intent of the lockdown measures was to reduce peak need to just below hospital capacity and no more. Reducing it further only increases the duration of lockdown and all its deleterious effects on public health. We did not come anywhere close to healthcare capacity, and what now? We just stay locked down forever? Your argument for lockdown is unfalsifiable. Any good outcome is attributable to lockdown, and any bad outcome is because we did not lockdown soon enough. What piece of evidence could you possibly see that would convince you you were wrong?

grumple 7y ago
> Your argument for lockdown is unfalsifiable. If you want to get down to epistemological arguments, then we should be clear: we can't know ANYTHING about the real world for certain and all no claim about the natural world is falsifiable; the only claims we can make are those that are tautological or conceptual only. The scientific method itself does not stand on anything more than epistemological sand. Obviously, that's a ridiculous way to think about the world and not helpful. What we CAN do is see the changes in trajectory of the virus growth rate caused by the lockdown; and extrapolate based on the data that we've seen about how it would grow without the lockdown. This is what a large number of domain experts (including data scientists with domain knowledge) have been doing, and they believe the lockdown has been necessary (and will continue to be, at least in part).
- ryankemper 7y ago
  > This is what a large number of domain experts (including data scientists with domain knowledge) have been doing, and they believe the lockdown has been necessary (and will continue to be, at least in part). I believe you, but can you cite some domain experts so that we have something to work off of?

3 ms·

the intent of the lockdown measures was to reduce peak need to just below hospital capacity and no more. Reducing it further only increases the duration of lock

by bagacrap 7y ago

grumple 7y ago
> Your argument for lockdown is unfalsifiable. If you want to get down to epistemological arguments, then we should be clear: we can't know ANYTHING about the real world for certain and all no claim about the natural world is falsifiable; the only claims we can make are those that are tautological or conceptual only. The scientific method itself does not stand on anything more than epistemological sand. Obviously, that's a ridiculous way to think about the world and not helpful. What we CAN do is see the changes in trajectory of the virus growth rate caused by the lockdown; and extrapolate based on the data that we've seen about how it would grow without the lockdown. This is what a large number of domain experts (including data scientists with domain knowledge) have been doing, and they believe the lockdown has been necessary (and will continue to be, at least in part).
- ryankemper 7y ago
  > This is what a large number of domain experts (including data scientists with domain knowledge) have been doing, and they believe the lockdown has been necessary (and will continue to be, at least in part). I believe you, but can you cite some domain experts so that we have something to work off of?