The Cummings style of applying Science then: Really, it lets you ask a question, you get an answer.
But it cannot answer questions such as: Should we let older people die to save the economy? As that is a moral question.
And then you have to ask the economist: What are the real impacts of that? Will it work, can we assume "economically inactive" people really don't contribute much?
What happens in the meantime, are you dealing with a semi-chaotic system as the pandemic is still ongoing?
How large are your error bars in your estimates?
This is like the government and their "We followed the Science" ?
(after arguing with the "it's just the flu" and "they would have died anyway" anti maskers on the local FB groups all week I can't deal with this video right now hah)
I found a useful counter-argument to his analysis:
It's interesting how many views on social media are "just a flu" vs "never leaving the house"
Would be interesting to model what mass testing with reopening health care fully may mean, as carehomes/people that need some types of healthcare are definitely hit by the lockdown.
Wait, did I say testing...? World beating shambles! :(
© LFGSS, powered by microcosm.
Report a problem
Congrats to Tao on winning the Giro