3 ms·

I don't think you even understand me a little. I'm not here to debate you (or anyone). I will point it out, when people respond with something that is either i

I don't think you even understand me a little. I'm not here to debate you (or anyone). I will point it out, when people respond with something that is either incorrect or not applicable, but more out of courtesy than to convince anyone. It's just because they might not know the relevant local situation as I do. But, I sincerely don't care whether I convince you or not. Your mistakes and ignorance are your own responsibility; your funeral. I don't have to show or prove you anything. I did not say that lockdowns don't work. They certainly did have (some) effect here. On the other hand, the virus did spreading either way, even with some of the most draconian measures taken anywhere. Those were new infections, for months. That in itself might at least suggest that you require extremely disproportionate measures (causing all kinds of damage) to really influence/contain the spread this way. That is, (especially) if you essentially don't test anyone. However, that's a whole different discussion/topic. What I originally pointed out is that it was odd to see how, when all measures were lifted (for whatever the reason), none of the earlier predicted doom scenarios happened. Which should cause at least pause and wonder (or reassessment) whether those predictions/assumptions are actually accurate in the first place. You can throw back in a theory, which wasn't applicable in this particular situation, which I can tell from the details/facts I personally know. Then you can throw a tantrum/fit, while claiming to know some unquestionably truthful/factual, and argue that therefore I must be wrong. Well, maybe your own beliefs are still the actual wrong part here. Mind you, I don't give a shit about any political side or beliefs. Nor was I really bothered with any of the measures (not even the draconian ones, although they should be useful and not just a political tool). However, my big gripe is with people that take what ultimately still are estimations and predictive risk assessments (which in themselves are perfectly okay and reasonable, as long as they get updated with new insights and understandings), and start presenting them as canonical gospel that can not be questioned and should be religiously defended. There should be no place for dogma like that in science (or anywhere, for that matter).

acqq 6y ago
> There should be no place for dogma like that in science To do science (or even do any conclusion) one needs verifiable facts. It's facts that I miss here. That you claim that somehow you “know” something that doesn’t match any other observation, without providing any numbers or data at all, except hearsay, doesn’t bring anything to anybody. My only conclusion is that your words, unsupported by anything at all, after seeing different behavior across the world for months just can't be trusted. What’s the difference between your claims and any claim appearing on 4chan? If you would publish your data where it can be verified that it shows something that is completely opposite of what's observed in the rest of the world... that would be something that I would surely praise. And the rest of the world probably too. Imagine that... something that gives a new information different to the experience of the rest of the world, and it is actually true. I just don't see that in your messages. The dynamics of epidemics are known: Rt > 1 produces exponential growth. But the speed of growth is dependent on the value, and every exponential function has the initial part that "still doesn't look bad." Rt = 1 produces linear growth. Rt < 1 results in the decay of the number of cases. You somehow claim that you see something different than that, even if the simplest explanation is that your hearsay story was based either on Rt > 1 but on the small number of starting cases or on Rt practically being around 1 where the number of new cases is never hard for the health system, or it can be that during the period described Rt oscillated around 1, again not stressing the health system. And all that is dependent on behavior of millions of people, who can in their environments, which could be relatively isolated from the rest, have their own initial conditions and their own Rt values. But we just don't know what happened there -- we have no useful data from you.

acqq 6y ago

> There should be no place for dogma like that in science To do science (or even do any conclusion) one needs verifiable facts. It's facts that I miss here. That you claim that somehow you “know” something that doesn’t match any other observation, without providing any numbers or data at all, except hearsay, doesn’t bring anything to anybody. My only conclusion is that your words, unsupported by anything at all, after seeing different behavior across the world for months just can't be trusted. What’s the difference between your claims and any claim appearing on 4chan? If you would publish your data where it can be verified that it shows something that is completely opposite of what's observed in the rest of the world... that would be something that I would surely praise. And the rest of the world probably too. Imagine that... something that gives a new information different to the experience of the rest of the world, and it is actually true. I just don't see that in your messages. The dynamics of epidemics are known: Rt > 1 produces exponential growth. But the speed of growth is dependent on the value, and every exponential function has the initial part that "still doesn't look bad." Rt = 1 produces linear growth. Rt < 1 results in the decay of the number of cases. You somehow claim that you see something different than that, even if the simplest explanation is that your hearsay story was based either on Rt > 1 but on the small number of starting cases or on Rt practically being around 1 where the number of new cases is never hard for the health system, or it can be that during the period described Rt oscillated around 1, again not stressing the health system. And all that is dependent on behavior of millions of people, who can in their environments, which could be relatively isolated from the rest, have their own initial conditions and their own Rt values. But we just don't know what happened there -- we have no useful data from you.