arblify

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by arblify 6y ago

   Your questions are all reasonable. I'm not personally opposed to quantitative decision-making, but I'm also painfully aware of the limitations of quantitative methods, especially when applied under pressure. I would argue that a b
2. 2.▲
   by arblify 6y ago

   I'm not suggesting having no metrics, I'm talking about hard targets. Acknowledging that there are things we don't know about the problem and that we're not overcommitting to a course of action based on some specific tar
3. 3.▲
   by arblify 6y ago

   Once you commit to some success metric, you're going to be stuck with it even it proves to be a bad metric. Let's say we all agree the "2 weeks with decreasing number of deaths" is a good target. Then we go back to work,
4. 4.▲
   by arblify 6y ago

   I think you're right, we do need a plan, but we need trained epidemiologists and other public health figures to define that plan. Many features of disease spread are counterintuitive and we need people with training to help us, the pub
5. 5.▲
   by arblify 6y ago

   It actually does mean something, which is that freedom is not unlimited. Your freedom of action ends at the point where it harms someone else. Classically, "your right to throw your fist ends at my face." It's the same reason