3 ms·

This is preposterous. The measures we are taking will kill far more than the disease itself when all is said and done - look at the referral numbers for stroke

This is preposterous. The measures we are taking will kill far more than the disease itself when all is said and done - look at the referral numbers for stroke centers alone. If this was a test of our collective ability to meet an emerging threat, then we failed about as badly as it is possible to fail. What’s worse is that we failed not so much because of an initial honest mistake, but because we’ve turned out to be superstitious cowards. Shame on us all.

ascorbic 6y ago
We shouldn't compare it with the number of people who eventually die from covid. We should compare it with the number of people who would have died if there were no measures taken.
- guscost 6y ago
  I’m not OK with that option. We can make up nonsense on computers as many times as we like, but it will never mean that reality “would have” been anything. Science doesn’t work on “would have” questions, and anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan. So we may not be able to resolve this disagreement. Just understand that I’m at least as pissed off as the people on the other side.
  - simondw 6y ago
    > The measures we are taking will kill far more than the disease itself You're comparing (cost of measures) to (cost of disease after taking those measures), which is a nonsensical comparison. It's like saying "parachutes are too expensive; almost no one dies from skydiving!" How many people would die from skydiving if skydivers stopped using parachutes but continued to skydive? Am I a charlatan if I give a rough number? Surely there is a continuum of uncertainty between the skydivers and "it's impossible to know." Surely diseases can be modeled, and those models used to predict outcomes with various degrees of uncertainty. Surely those predictions have meaning.
    - guscost 6y ago
      We can test the prediction that parachutes improve skydiver survival with a simple experiment. It would be an inhumane experiment, so in this case it is fair to assume the theory would be proven correct (but we can always test a similar prediction that parachutes prevent human-like objects from being destroyed, if you prefer). With a global pandemic, it is in fact impossible to know, and anyone who claims otherwise is in fact a charlatan. That’s the key detail you’re missing here: The skydiver theory can be phrased as a “will” question, but this is always going to be a “would have” question. We can’t run an experiment to test any prediction - where’s the control Earth? If we can’t run an experiment, it is not science. Period. You are allowed to believe whatever you like, but this shameful episode will be the final nail in the coffin for all pop-bullshit “science”: https://guscost.com/2020/05/12/pandemic-woo/ https://guscost.com/2020/05/12/pandemic-woo/

ascorbic 6y ago

We shouldn't compare it with the number of people who eventually die from covid. We should compare it with the number of people who would have died if there were no measures taken.

guscost 6y ago
I’m not OK with that option. We can make up nonsense on computers as many times as we like, but it will never mean that reality “would have” been anything. Science doesn’t work on “would have” questions, and anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan. So we may not be able to resolve this disagreement. Just understand that I’m at least as pissed off as the people on the other side.
- simondw 6y ago
  > The measures we are taking will kill far more than the disease itself You're comparing (cost of measures) to (cost of disease after taking those measures), which is a nonsensical comparison. It's like saying "parachutes are too expensive; almost no one dies from skydiving!" How many people would die from skydiving if skydivers stopped using parachutes but continued to skydive? Am I a charlatan if I give a rough number? Surely there is a continuum of uncertainty between the skydivers and "it's impossible to know." Surely diseases can be modeled, and those models used to predict outcomes with various degrees of uncertainty. Surely those predictions have meaning.
  - guscost 6y ago
    We can test the prediction that parachutes improve skydiver survival with a simple experiment. It would be an inhumane experiment, so in this case it is fair to assume the theory would be proven correct (but we can always test a similar prediction that parachutes prevent human-like objects from being destroyed, if you prefer). With a global pandemic, it is in fact impossible to know, and anyone who claims otherwise is in fact a charlatan. That’s the key detail you’re missing here: The skydiver theory can be phrased as a “will” question, but this is always going to be a “would have” question. We can’t run an experiment to test any prediction - where’s the control Earth? If we can’t run an experiment, it is not science. Period. You are allowed to believe whatever you like, but this shameful episode will be the final nail in the coffin for all pop-bullshit “science”: https://guscost.com/2020/05/12/pandemic-woo/ https://guscost.com/2020/05/12/pandemic-woo/