4 ms·
Michael Levitt, though almost certainly a smart guy, has not had the best track record, making predictions both accurate and not. Also, predictions alone are...
by zamfi 6y ago
Michael Levitt, though almost certainly a smart guy, has not had the best track record, making predictions both accurate and not. Also, predictions alone are...not that useful? From your Wikipedia article:
> In March, the Los Angeles Times reported that Levitt correctly forecasted in February that the COVID-19 pandemic in China would soon peak and that China would end up with around 80,000 cases and 3,250 deaths from COVID-19.[41] However, it has been noted that Levitt actually made a number of predictions, including incorrect forecasts, in February about China's COVID-19 trajectory[42], including one on February 7, 2020 claiming that "by 14-Feb. we will have reached 95% of the eventual death count of 928".[43] Levitt also has stated his belief that achieving natural herd immunity to the virus is possible[44] and has spoken against lockdown orders.[45]
> Levitt also wrongly predicted that Israel would suffer no more than 10 COVID-19 deaths[46]. On July 25, 2020, Levitt predicted that COVID-19 in the United States would be over "in 4 weeks with total reported deaths below 170,000".[47] However, this prediction about the reported death count also ended up being wrong as the number of reported deaths from COVID-19 in the United States exceeded 170,000 on August 16, 2020, only 3 weeks after Levitt's prediction.[48]
Sounds like he does get some coverage. As for why it’s not wall-to-wall? Maybe his predictions have been wrong too many times?
- eternalban 6y agoDon't focus on one guy. He is just one example. There is a pattern of a whole range of individuals with very credible credentials that are entirely ignored. Track records don't seem to matter. The famous Imperial College model was by a worker with a rather alarming track record. How is the track record of Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, btw? Or the unqualified man currently serving as head of WHO? His C.V. is alarming enough. So side arguments aside, the question remains as to why Bill Gates, are granted such a global megaphone. The article from Columbia Review of Journalism tells us why that may be the case. I find it entirely irrational and unreasonable that decisions that will affect the entirety of humanity today, and will definitively alter the course of human development are to be made by individuals such as Bill Gates, and that other input by far more qualified individuals is entirely ignored, if not blackwashed. It not unreasonable to seek a second opinion even for relatively minor health matters. And here we are talking about metaphorical open heart surgery on the very nature of society: how we are governed, how we interact, and how we make collective decisions. There has never been a more timely moment to ASK QUESTIONS.
- tboyd47 6y agoHow does he compare to, say, Niall Ferguson, who did get "wall-to-wall" coverage, and actually influenced policy decisions?