4 ms·

a broken clock is right twice a day too, and we like to see what we want to see in data. even if what you believe were true, you’d have to show it wasn’t mere r

a broken clock is right twice a day too, and we like to see what we want to see in data. even if what you believe were true, you’d have to show it wasn’t mere random coincidence. mathematical models are no match for human behavior. it’s easy to find a model that seems to match reality once or twice on a short time scale. it’s likely impossible (the P=NP problem) to find a reliable model long-term (see: trading algorithms, and economics in general). even more unlikely is that lockdown is the principle force behind any perceived matches. if you look at the wealth of information we have with a skeptical eye, you’d see there isn’t much support for lockdowns for this pandemic (which is different from mitigations like context-sensitive distancing). what is quite evident is that a lot of people are scared out of their wits even a year on (e.g., people wearing 2 masks outside) and cynical about other people (trying to kill grandma with their selfishness), and as a result want to believe in technofascist panaceas with all their might.

nl 6y ago
I'm not entirely sure what evidence would satisfy you. Are you rejecting epidemiological models as a reasonable representation of reality? That's a pretty bold take - all models have limits, but epidemiological modelling is a pretty well established science that makes good predictions that repeatedly hold up. There are mechanical reasons to think a lockdown should work (reduced contact means reduced transmission), good explanations for circumstances where they fail (exponential spread from any leakage means it doesn't take long to erase the gains from reduced transmission) and multiple locations where they have worked.
- clairity 6y ago
  it’s empirical skepticism, not a bold take. even if you can get the math to line up with reality in this instance, at the very least an epidemiological model isn’t going to tell you why, with any certainty. your reasonings are about why something should work to buttress your beliefs, but you haven’t yet enumerated why any alternative explanation (especially the simpler ones) should or shouldn’t work. that would differentiate your reasoning from popular zealotry. the term ‘science’ has lost meaning in popular/political discussions because it tries to elide uncertainty in just this way.

nl 6y ago

I'm not entirely sure what evidence would satisfy you. Are you rejecting epidemiological models as a reasonable representation of reality? That's a pretty bold take - all models have limits, but epidemiological modelling is a pretty well established science that makes good predictions that repeatedly hold up. There are mechanical reasons to think a lockdown should work (reduced contact means reduced transmission), good explanations for circumstances where they fail (exponential spread from any leakage means it doesn't take long to erase the gains from reduced transmission) and multiple locations where they have worked.

clairity 6y ago
it’s empirical skepticism, not a bold take. even if you can get the math to line up with reality in this instance, at the very least an epidemiological model isn’t going to tell you why, with any certainty. your reasonings are about why something should work to buttress your beliefs, but you haven’t yet enumerated why any alternative explanation (especially the simpler ones) should or shouldn’t work. that would differentiate your reasoning from popular zealotry. the term ‘science’ has lost meaning in popular/political discussions because it tries to elide uncertainty in just this way.