3 ms·

> 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), w

> 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/