3 ms·
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
by 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 agoit’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.