4 ms·

SO we are to be ruled by experts? Show me the model produced by he experts that has been right? Show me the science behind the idea of quarantining the entire

by DiffEq 6y ago

SO we are to be ruled by experts? Show me the model produced by he experts that has been right? Show me the science behind the idea of quarantining the entire population in order to slow the spread of Covid-19. There is science behind quarantining sick people - but not healthy people. Show me the science behind the social distancing - 6 foot rule? I mean really - where IS the science to those things? These experts are self-proclaimed. I am more than willing to listen to a bridge builder tell me why I need to use a certain kind of steel as apposed to another - but many of these experts that we have been listening to lately are anything but experts.

afthonos 6y ago
I’m confused. Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? Sounds like you think we already are, what’s the problem? The opposite of “expert” isn’t “uses magical common sense to arrive at the right decision”, it’s “crapshoot”.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? No, he is making the valid point that in many areas that are highly relevant to public policy, there are no experts. Those who call themselves "experts" actually aren't. Nobody has enough understanding of the problem domain to make accurate predictions. In such a case, the only viable solution is for nobody to "rule".
  - scruple 6y ago
    "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." - Joan Robinson, 1955 She's not wrong. If my adulthood has taught me anything it's that supposed "experts" are oftentimes anything but. And they're certainly not trustworthy just because of their title or credentialing.
  - afthonos 6y ago
    Decisions have to be made—including doing nothing. Someone is always "ruling". Diffusing responsibility does not change that fact (though it can have other significant benefits). I'm sympathetic to your POV, by the way, because uncritically listening to experts has literally killed millions of people in the past century. But the key word is "uncritically". Pushback is healthy, discussion is super-healthy; my position, though, is that in any argument, experts should get more weight unless the people arguing back have strong, on-the-ground evidence.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > Decisions have to be made In general, I disagree. Most of the time decisions do not have to be made--more precisely, decisions by "leaders" who get to dictate what everyone must or must not do so not have to be made, and should not be made. Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. > in any argument, experts should get more weight If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. However, by that criterion, as I said, in most domains that are of importance for public policy, there are no experts. Your statement, while correct in itself with that definition of "expert", does not help at all in those domains. Any other definition of "expert" does not justify your statement.
      - afthonos 6y ago
        > Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. Again, "no decision" is a decision, especially in the presence of alternatives. > If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? 100%? 75%? 5% better than an average person's? I think each level warrants different levels of deference. If a perfect oracle speaks, you do what they say. If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully, and ask follow-up questions, but you don't pretend that the Google University™ twenty minute crash course on the topic is as informative. I recognize it's not simple (and it's fraught). But saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy.
NhanH 6y ago
The Imperial College paper that kicked off the whole thing has plenty of details on various quarantining scenarios, including full population quarantine and at risk population quarantine, or any combination thereof. Did you read it? Do you not agree with the simulations or what are your objections?
- pdonis 6y ago
  https://judithcurry.com/2020/04/01/imperial-college-uk-covid-19-numbers-dont-seem-to-add-up/ https://judithcurry.com/2020/04/01/imperial-college-uk-covid...
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    From browsing that site, she seems to be a professional science contrarian - worth keeping in mind when reading that article.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > she seems to be a professional science contrarian She's a scientist. To the extent she's a "contrarian", it's due to her personal experience in seeing how science actually works as compared to how it's supposed to work.
  - eveningcoffee 6y ago
    > However, using Ferguson20’s stated assumptions, I calculate a 30% higher death toll of approximately 660,000 people (Column A7), implying an IFR of 1.23%. Now what?
cma 6y ago
The word quarantine originated from quarantining all people entering an area a certain number of days. Not just visibly sick people.
- gpderetta 6y ago
  > a certain number of days. to be precise, literally 40 days ("quaranta" means 40 in Italian).
msla 6y ago
> SO we are to be ruled by experts? There's a reason people in power have advisors, and it isn't just to rubber-stamp things. Back in the old days, FDR had a board of experts to advise him on things. He listened to them. Governments also have a professional civil service, full of people who don't rule but who are in contact with those who do, and who know enough to give good advice. So the question isn't whether we have a technocracy or a democratic system totally unconnected to reality. It's how well-advised our democratically elected leaders are.
ylem 6y ago
Hi! I am not sure about your background--which matters for explanation. I cannot speak to 6 feet in particular, but the basic idea starts with the assumption that the primary vector is large respiratory droplets. If that's the case, imagine you are a droplet. You are acted upon by gravity and by air/temperature. As you move along, you will fall. At some distance, most droplets above a certain size will have settled. That's the basic reasoning. You can argue about the particular cutoff, but the bigger question is how relevant aerosols are. But, the problem is that in the early spread of a virus, the growth in infections is very fast. Someone has to guess. If you wait for perfect knowledge, a lot of people will die because you are taking a linear approach to an exponentiatial problem.

by DiffEq 6y ago

afthonos 6y ago

I’m confused. Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? Sounds like you think we already are, what’s the problem? The opposite of “expert” isn’t “uses magical common sense to arrive at the right decision”, it’s “crapshoot”.

pdonis 6y ago
> Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? No, he is making the valid point that in many areas that are highly relevant to public policy, there are no experts. Those who call themselves "experts" actually aren't. Nobody has enough understanding of the problem domain to make accurate predictions. In such a case, the only viable solution is for nobody to "rule".
- scruple 6y ago
  "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." - Joan Robinson, 1955 She's not wrong. If my adulthood has taught me anything it's that supposed "experts" are oftentimes anything but. And they're certainly not trustworthy just because of their title or credentialing.
- afthonos 6y ago
  Decisions have to be made—including doing nothing. Someone is always "ruling". Diffusing responsibility does not change that fact (though it can have other significant benefits). I'm sympathetic to your POV, by the way, because uncritically listening to experts has literally killed millions of people in the past century. But the key word is "uncritically". Pushback is healthy, discussion is super-healthy; my position, though, is that in any argument, experts should get more weight unless the people arguing back have strong, on-the-ground evidence.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Decisions have to be made In general, I disagree. Most of the time decisions do not have to be made--more precisely, decisions by "leaders" who get to dictate what everyone must or must not do so not have to be made, and should not be made. Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. > in any argument, experts should get more weight If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. However, by that criterion, as I said, in most domains that are of importance for public policy, there are no experts. Your statement, while correct in itself with that definition of "expert", does not help at all in those domains. Any other definition of "expert" does not justify your statement.
    - afthonos 6y ago
      > Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. Again, "no decision" is a decision, especially in the presence of alternatives. > If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? 100%? 75%? 5% better than an average person's? I think each level warrants different levels of deference. If a perfect oracle speaks, you do what they say. If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully, and ask follow-up questions, but you don't pretend that the Google University™ twenty minute crash course on the topic is as informative. I recognize it's not simple (and it's fraught). But saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy.

NhanH 6y ago

The Imperial College paper that kicked off the whole thing has plenty of details on various quarantining scenarios, including full population quarantine and at risk population quarantine, or any combination thereof. Did you read it? Do you not agree with the simulations or what are your objections?

pdonis 6y ago
https://judithcurry.com/2020/04/01/imperial-college-uk-covid-19-numbers-dont-seem-to-add-up/ https://judithcurry.com/2020/04/01/imperial-college-uk-covid...
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  From browsing that site, she seems to be a professional science contrarian - worth keeping in mind when reading that article.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > she seems to be a professional science contrarian She's a scientist. To the extent she's a "contrarian", it's due to her personal experience in seeing how science actually works as compared to how it's supposed to work.
- eveningcoffee 6y ago
  > However, using Ferguson20’s stated assumptions, I calculate a 30% higher death toll of approximately 660,000 people (Column A7), implying an IFR of 1.23%. Now what?

cma 6y ago

The word quarantine originated from quarantining all people entering an area a certain number of days. Not just visibly sick people.

gpderetta 6y ago
> a certain number of days. to be precise, literally 40 days ("quaranta" means 40 in Italian).

msla 6y ago

> SO we are to be ruled by experts? There's a reason people in power have advisors, and it isn't just to rubber-stamp things. Back in the old days, FDR had a board of experts to advise him on things. He listened to them. Governments also have a professional civil service, full of people who don't rule but who are in contact with those who do, and who know enough to give good advice. So the question isn't whether we have a technocracy or a democratic system totally unconnected to reality. It's how well-advised our democratically elected leaders are.

ylem 6y ago

Hi! I am not sure about your background--which matters for explanation. I cannot speak to 6 feet in particular, but the basic idea starts with the assumption that the primary vector is large respiratory droplets. If that's the case, imagine you are a droplet. You are acted upon by gravity and by air/temperature. As you move along, you will fall. At some distance, most droplets above a certain size will have settled. That's the basic reasoning. You can argue about the particular cutoff, but the bigger question is how relevant aerosols are. But, the problem is that in the early spread of a virus, the growth in infections is very fast. Someone has to guess. If you wait for perfect knowledge, a lot of people will die because you are taking a linear approach to an exponentiatial problem.