3 ms·

I'm astounded by the number of attempts at persuasion in this thread. Around claims that deserve hard evidence. Just wait for the evidence and say "I don't know

I'm astounded by the number of attempts at persuasion in this thread. Around claims that deserve hard evidence. Just wait for the evidence and say "I don't know" in the meantime. I see nonsense like "because other Sars viruses act like this we can assume blah blah blah". No we can't. Nature is full of bizarre surprises and scientific consensus changes often enough thanks to research and hard evidence. If you have meta studies on Coronavirus, please cite them. Otherwise stop with the "educated" guesses. You're better than this HN.

ransom1538 6y ago
Yes. Don't make any assumptions about a pandemic sweeping the world until you have done triple blind studies for 4 years. Obviously.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  That's a strawman along with an exaggeration. I never said to not make assumptions. If you are a doctor or scientist specializing in disease then I'd love to hear your assumptions. It's the layman persuasive arguments in here that are a waste of everyone's time. If doctors don't know - and plenty of doctors are willing to say "we just don't know that yet" - then you don't know either.
jmull 6y ago
It's correct to say "We're not sure". However, if you demand hard proof before taking any significant action, that's the same thing as demanding that no significant action be taken. That's a very difficult position to sustain. Not to mention, doing nothing in the face of a huge and deadly pandemic is a very significant action, which you'd be taking without hard evidence. The reality is, we have to take action and don't have the luxury of time to ensure our decisions are absolutely correct. We need to marshal the evidence we have, have our best experts extrapolate what we don't know and take our best guess as to the most effective course of actions. Of course, one set of actions we can take is to initiate research to gather more evidence and change course in response -- prioritizing things based on level of impact and time/resources it takes to gather the information. > You're better than this HN. Making decent decisions in the face of imperfect information is something everyone should try to learn, though it is hard to do well.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > However, if you demand hard proof before taking any significant action, that's the same thing as demanding that no significant action be taken. We do have enough hard evidence of many things to take action. And we have seen those actions result in positive outcomes. My gripe is about the many hot takes presented in this thread about what action we should take based on way more guessing than is needed and then presented as almost fact. It sounds like we both agree we "need to marshal the evidence we have, have our best experts extrapolate what we don't know and take our best guess as to the most effective course of actions".

ransom1538 6y ago

Yes. Don't make any assumptions about a pandemic sweeping the world until you have done triple blind studies for 4 years. Obviously.

tchaffee 6y ago
That's a strawman along with an exaggeration. I never said to not make assumptions. If you are a doctor or scientist specializing in disease then I'd love to hear your assumptions. It's the layman persuasive arguments in here that are a waste of everyone's time. If doctors don't know - and plenty of doctors are willing to say "we just don't know that yet" - then you don't know either.

jmull 6y ago

It's correct to say "We're not sure". However, if you demand hard proof before taking any significant action, that's the same thing as demanding that no significant action be taken. That's a very difficult position to sustain. Not to mention, doing nothing in the face of a huge and deadly pandemic is a very significant action, which you'd be taking without hard evidence. The reality is, we have to take action and don't have the luxury of time to ensure our decisions are absolutely correct. We need to marshal the evidence we have, have our best experts extrapolate what we don't know and take our best guess as to the most effective course of actions. Of course, one set of actions we can take is to initiate research to gather more evidence and change course in response -- prioritizing things based on level of impact and time/resources it takes to gather the information. > You're better than this HN. Making decent decisions in the face of imperfect information is something everyone should try to learn, though it is hard to do well.

tchaffee 6y ago
> However, if you demand hard proof before taking any significant action, that's the same thing as demanding that no significant action be taken. We do have enough hard evidence of many things to take action. And we have seen those actions result in positive outcomes. My gripe is about the many hot takes presented in this thread about what action we should take based on way more guessing than is needed and then presented as almost fact. It sounds like we both agree we "need to marshal the evidence we have, have our best experts extrapolate what we don't know and take our best guess as to the most effective course of actions".