4 ms·

Epidemiologists are not equipped to understand the economic ramifications that occur when large portions of society are forced to halt their business operations

Epidemiologists are not equipped to understand the economic ramifications that occur when large portions of society are forced to halt their business operations. This seems self-evident. Public policy wrt Covid basically occurs at the intersection of epidemiology and economics. The epidemiologists can help tell you what will happen under different scenarios, and the economists can tell you what will happen economically speaking in those same scenarios. We're basically balancing the economic impact directly attributable to sick days and to COVID-19 deaths, with the impact of the shutdown itself. As you already know, my conclusion is that the latter is far more severe. But that balancing act is of course precisely what all the debate is about.

pinkfoot 6y ago
They aren't, but you are. Right
- ryankemper 6y ago
  Thus why I don't engage in gatekeeping. I'm just pointing out the obvious hole in your view. There's no hole in my view because I believe that experts are right more often than not, but I also believe that they can get things wrong, or fail to see the ramifications of certain policies. Thus why so much of the discussion seems to be optimizing for a single variable - COVID-19 deaths - while ignoring plenty of other dimensions that we care about (deaths from all causes in the long run, quality of life, etc). In particular quality of life is absolutely missing from the analysis in many who claim that the lockdown is justified.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  Well, the problem that at least where I live the experts make statements on public policy outside their domain (e.g., organization of public transport) that are barely practical, if not down right impossible to carry out. OTOH, someone well versed in economy but not in epidemiology or medicine would fail to understand some of the health implications of the current epidemic. It's not a problem per se, but that's where the discussion on public policy comes in, weighing all the opinions from the stakeholders, then making a decision (right or wrong, but taking responsiblity for it). That's why I'm wary of statements like "we will reopen when the scientists say so": it's a deflection of responsibility (they don't carry the burden, rightly so, for their decision, but politics does), and for the politics, a serious step back from its duties.

pinkfoot 6y ago

They aren't, but you are. Right

ryankemper 6y ago
Thus why I don't engage in gatekeeping. I'm just pointing out the obvious hole in your view. There's no hole in my view because I believe that experts are right more often than not, but I also believe that they can get things wrong, or fail to see the ramifications of certain policies. Thus why so much of the discussion seems to be optimizing for a single variable - COVID-19 deaths - while ignoring plenty of other dimensions that we care about (deaths from all causes in the long run, quality of life, etc). In particular quality of life is absolutely missing from the analysis in many who claim that the lockdown is justified.
lbeltrame 6y ago
Well, the problem that at least where I live the experts make statements on public policy outside their domain (e.g., organization of public transport) that are barely practical, if not down right impossible to carry out. OTOH, someone well versed in economy but not in epidemiology or medicine would fail to understand some of the health implications of the current epidemic. It's not a problem per se, but that's where the discussion on public policy comes in, weighing all the opinions from the stakeholders, then making a decision (right or wrong, but taking responsiblity for it). That's why I'm wary of statements like "we will reopen when the scientists say so": it's a deflection of responsibility (they don't carry the burden, rightly so, for their decision, but politics does), and for the politics, a serious step back from its duties.