3 ms·
The comment in the rational wiki supporting inclusion of Levitt says that wikipedia includes him. It is not correct now as wikipedia has removed him. GBD was n
by NoPie 5y ago
The comment in the rational wiki supporting inclusion of Levitt says that wikipedia includes him. It is not correct now as wikipedia has removed him.
GBD was never about letting the virus spread unchecked but to be more targeted. This approach was never really tested so the critics are not proven correct.
- eesmith 5y agoI see. The current entry started 9 August 2021. It's been going back and forth. The 1 September 2020 entrying adding him was almost immediately reverted. The 4 September 2020 entry re-adding him was reverted 23 September 2020. > never about letting the virus spread unchecked Meaning you disagree with Tedros' characterization but agree with the other critics? RationalWiki's entry > This approach was never really tested so the critics are not proven correct. Some things are unethical to test. We don't have double blind tests that parachutes work. https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 The RationalWiki entry for the GBD says the same thing a different way: "reasonable-sounding calls to "just give it a try" ignore that you don't need to try things which you know won't work and which have foreseeable negative consequences that are impossible (or at the very least, extremely difficult) to reverse"
- NoPie 5y agoExcept it turned out that doing nothing was comparable to lockdowns and herd immunity could not be reached even with vaccines. GBD might not have helped but it wouldn't have hurt and potentially could have helped things a lot. Instead we tried to reduce infection by lockdowns which didn't work and killed a lot of elderly and risk groups.