4 ms·

It's hardly surprising that a small number of the most privileged academics have taken an anti-lockdown opinion - which is their opinion, not backed by even the

It's hardly surprising that a small number of the most privileged academics have taken an anti-lockdown opinion - which is their opinion, not backed by even the simplest credible scientific model. Business as usual is a pretty sweet deal for a professor at one of these universities. They will face absolutely minimal personal risk, and it further benefits them to get publicity by taking a contrary position.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
I think this is deeply unfair to the GB signees. The issue here is not that they have a different "scientific model". They are suggesing giving a different weight to the competing costs of various approaches to covid19. I'm not sure I agree with them, but they're not disputing everybody else's science. They're saying "look, given what we know now, we think that if you rate the impact of the lockdown approach on poor people, and consider that to be a very important factor, you wouldn't see lockdowns as such a good idea". None of that means that they are denying what lockdowns do, or the problems of a no-lockdown approach. They are saying that given a certain set of weights for each component of the consequences of a policy, we should try to avoid lockdowns. You're free (as we all are) to disagree about the weight they choose for each consequence.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  I also don't have to agree that lockdowns are essentially harder on the poor, which is concerning where it has happened but could be dealt with instead via better protections for people. It's the same argument as 'restrictions on car-use are unfair on the poor' - an argument that you only hear from wealthy car owners.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    To be honest, I was not thinking of the US or UK here, I was thinking of comments I've heard from India and Pakistan by advocates for the poorest members of those nations regarding the impact of covid19 lockdown policies.
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      Yes... that plays exactly into my point here. How do the poorest people in India impact the decision of whether or not to lockdown the US?

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

I think this is deeply unfair to the GB signees. The issue here is not that they have a different "scientific model". They are suggesing giving a different weight to the competing costs of various approaches to covid19. I'm not sure I agree with them, but they're not disputing everybody else's science. They're saying "look, given what we know now, we think that if you rate the impact of the lockdown approach on poor people, and consider that to be a very important factor, you wouldn't see lockdowns as such a good idea". None of that means that they are denying what lockdowns do, or the problems of a no-lockdown approach. They are saying that given a certain set of weights for each component of the consequences of a policy, we should try to avoid lockdowns. You're free (as we all are) to disagree about the weight they choose for each consequence.

throwaway2245 6y ago
I also don't have to agree that lockdowns are essentially harder on the poor, which is concerning where it has happened but could be dealt with instead via better protections for people. It's the same argument as 'restrictions on car-use are unfair on the poor' - an argument that you only hear from wealthy car owners.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  To be honest, I was not thinking of the US or UK here, I was thinking of comments I've heard from India and Pakistan by advocates for the poorest members of those nations regarding the impact of covid19 lockdown policies.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    Yes... that plays exactly into my point here. How do the poorest people in India impact the decision of whether or not to lockdown the US?