"The models were wrong, they horribly overstated the # of deaths/hospitalizations we would face with social distancing, therefore we should start to reopen the economy."
Spot the holes in this argument
Spot the holes in this argument
Hint: we don't know WHY the models are wrong
If coronavirus is more contagious than the modelers assumed, that's great news
But what if social distancing measures are more effective that the modelers assumed?
Where's the control?
If coronavirus is more contagious than the modelers assumed, that's great news
But what if social distancing measures are more effective that the modelers assumed?
Where's the control?
Here's the real red pill - the models are a red herring, in both directions
Panic-mongering media used the most extreme projections for clicks
And then the flu crew used the (inevitable) inaccuracy of the models for ego preservation purposes ("See! You were wrong too!")
Panic-mongering media used the most extreme projections for clicks
And then the flu crew used the (inevitable) inaccuracy of the models for ego preservation purposes ("See! You were wrong too!")
The serious people who were alarmist about coronavirus in February weren't relying on models
They were talking about uncertainty, the novelty of the virus, and the potential for exponential growth
They were talking about uncertainty, the novelty of the virus, and the potential for exponential growth
For example, read how Peter Navarro was thinking about this back in January/February
axios.com/exclusive-nava…
axios.com/exclusive-nava…
