3 ms·

Hi. I read the essay "Pandemic Woo" which is linked in your profile. Is seems like your position is that: --COVID response strategy based on invalid "post-mod

Hi. I read the essay "Pandemic Woo" which is linked in your profile. Is seems like your position is that: --COVID response strategy based on invalid "post-modern science", --the conclusion that the disease death rate is order of one percent is incorrect --and therefore, the policy response is grossly disproportionate and harmful. It seems like you are arguing about facts not values, and you think the disease death rate is not really order of %1. Is this what you mean? I'm also asking because I have heard many heated statements about "post-modern" science around here as of late that wherein the speaker seems to treat that concept as common knowledge, and then walks off without explaining themselves, but I don't really understand what they are on about.

guscost 6y ago
The first point is characterized correctly. We are reaping the whirlwind from a pernicious post-modern academic culture that has been thoroughly corrupted, even in the traditionally "harder" sciences to a degree. Here is a much drier, but still excellent, argument along the same lines: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-validation-in-a-world-without-meaning/ https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-v... The second characterization is way off base. All IFR numbers are rough estimates at this point, and in fact the number is just a model parameter that does not correspond to anything in the real world, so it's a bit hard to talk about any "fact" there. The disease evolves, treatment protocols change (early venting was a terrible mistake), and susceptibility may vary widely from community to community. Still, the most recent CDC estimate for this model parameter is 0.26%. The third is a prediction, not an established fact. Right now there is no way to know what the long-term effects of our policy response will be. I have cited many anecdotal "bad" effects which (together with others) I believe will outweigh the "good" effects, but we will have to wait and see.
- zaroth 6y ago
  To your third point, a recent study funded by the Gates Foundation estimates excess deaths over the next 6 months caused indirectly due to the virus response; > While the COVID-19 pandemic will increase mortality due to the virus, it is also likely to increase mortality indirectly. In this study, we estimate the additional maternal and under-5 child deaths resulting from the potential disruption of health systems and decreased access to food. At the low end they predict 250,000 excess child deaths and 12,000 excess maternal deaths, and at the high end 1,150,000 excess child deaths and 56,000 excess maternal deaths due to decreased access to health care and food. The number of missed vaccines and cancer screenings alone multiplied worldwide turns into a massive hit to public health. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30229-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...

guscost 6y ago

The first point is characterized correctly. We are reaping the whirlwind from a pernicious post-modern academic culture that has been thoroughly corrupted, even in the traditionally "harder" sciences to a degree. Here is a much drier, but still excellent, argument along the same lines: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-validation-in-a-world-without-meaning/ https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-v... The second characterization is way off base. All IFR numbers are rough estimates at this point, and in fact the number is just a model parameter that does not correspond to anything in the real world, so it's a bit hard to talk about any "fact" there. The disease evolves, treatment protocols change (early venting was a terrible mistake), and susceptibility may vary widely from community to community. Still, the most recent CDC estimate for this model parameter is 0.26%. The third is a prediction, not an established fact. Right now there is no way to know what the long-term effects of our policy response will be. I have cited many anecdotal "bad" effects which (together with others) I believe will outweigh the "good" effects, but we will have to wait and see.

zaroth 6y ago
To your third point, a recent study funded by the Gates Foundation estimates excess deaths over the next 6 months caused indirectly due to the virus response; > While the COVID-19 pandemic will increase mortality due to the virus, it is also likely to increase mortality indirectly. In this study, we estimate the additional maternal and under-5 child deaths resulting from the potential disruption of health systems and decreased access to food. At the low end they predict 250,000 excess child deaths and 12,000 excess maternal deaths, and at the high end 1,150,000 excess child deaths and 56,000 excess maternal deaths due to decreased access to health care and food. The number of missed vaccines and cancer screenings alone multiplied worldwide turns into a massive hit to public health. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30229-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...