the first rule of economics is that resources are scarce and there are never enough goods or services to meet demand.

the first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics.

so, should any of us be surprised that they ignored all the rules of epidemiology as well?
we have allowed 100 years of pandemic guidelines to be thrown out the window and be replaced with scientifically illiterate grandstanding and demagoguery.

we have elevated fools and charlatans to posts of dictatorial power and turned them loose upon an unsuspecting populace.
they mistook reality (on the right) for the bizarre and improbable tenets of their dated, failed models that had been rapidly repurposed to spread fear and push for budgets once more.

read this whole article, it's wonderful.…
many of you won't, so here are cliff's notes:

herd immunity is not 70%. it's 15-25%, varies by location, and is a function of both pre existing cross resistance and heterogeneous social graphs.

both reduce HIT dramatically from the 1-(1/r0) asymptote

cross resistance was, is, and will reman widespread.

it's just t-cell mediated (which is harder to test for) and thus all the IgG antibody testing from early on was irrelevant.

this was widely known to be the case. no one tracks an epidemic using IgG. it's a ridiculous idea.
also widely known was "never, ever (and i mean ever) listen to academic epidemiologists with "models" showing you what a disease is going to do."

they are always wrong, always hysterical, and LOVE overpredicting crisis.

this is from march:

note how blindingly obvious this was to those of us who actually know epidemiologists.

their track record from zika to dengue to swine flu and ebola is astonishingly bad.

and it's NEVER too conservative. it is always too hysterical.

this is not to say there are not good epidemiologists.

the brave men and women who suit up and fly to the congo to help fight ebola are serious, competent people worthy of great respect.

but the ones who build models are a different breed and that's the worrying one.
academic epidemiologists suffer from horrific adverse selection.

the truly talented ones like gupta, kulldorf and bhattacharya tend to be quiet and measured.

they speak like scientists and couch their statements in probability and uncertainty.

this is because they seek truth.
but measured & reasoned is not what gets you on TV. calamitous models full of "mathiness" and dire claims of the impending end of the world do.

so third rate clowns like the IHME, imperial, and facui wind up in the limelight. even utter frauds like eric ding make good TV.
and the politicians LOVE this. they do not pick top experts, they pick the people who advocate doing what they wanted to do anyway: grab power and gallop around on a white horse shouting orders and handing out massive piles of emergency money to cronies.

happens every time.
media and money hungry academics are a perfect figleaf for power hungry politicians.

it sets up a self reinforcing cycle.

when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

and politicians LOVE to subsidize bad science if it lets them justify grabbing power.
there are always going to be a certain number of "scientists" that are more interested in money and power than science.

they tend to be the ones that are not good in their field.

they seek to manage rather than do actual research because they are not good at actual research.
this is how you get a guy like fauci atop a huge medical bureaucracy. he's a politician, not a scientist.

this is why gov't science grants are so damaging. once they become the primary source of funds science becomes politicized.

pretty soon, you get this:
what other outcome could occur? grants are given by politicians for political reasons. look what such money flows have been used to do to universities. did you think biosciences and epidemiology and climate science would be different?

whole fields get subverted.
all you have to do is offer subsidies to those who offer to provide the "right" answers for your policy and starve those who oppose you and whole fields of endeavor get twisted out of recognition.

buffoons like ferguson get elevated and true experts like gupta silenced.
politicians pick scientists (often fringe hacks) who justify their policies.

they then represent these bought & paid for charlatans as "the science" as though there is not other view.

they claim "following the science" is not political.

but picking which science to follow is.
it's a logical sleight of hand.

they trot out their hand picked scientific show ponies as "the science" and claim to be above politics and reproach, but hide from view the fact that these scientists were selected for ideological purposes and do not represent consensus.
and so both politics and entire fields of scientific endeavor get twisted around one another into a symbiosis of pseudoscience.

up becomes down and down becomes sideways because that is what is politically expedient and he who pays the piper shall inevitably call the tune.
this is why the idea of "government science" is so incredibly bad.

it destroys every field it comes to dominate. the utter hacks that now sit atop climate science despite having been third rate back benchers and frauds is breathtaking.

but they are "useful."
you cannot have politicians allocating science funding without turning hard science into political science.

these programs always sound great, but the reality is that they are a plague on science and a repudiation of the scientific method.

they need to stop.

food for thought.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with el gato malo

el gato malo Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @boriquagato

17 Oct
you want to see true bravery and scientific and intellectual integrity?

try this:

ms kuppalli throws down the gauntlet!

and i respond with several sets of data showing mask inefficacy.

her response: block the cat.

could there be a clearer admission that she has no argument? Image

this is the sort of weak rejoinder i think many of us have come to expect from the political arm of team apocalypse. Image
i guess we'll never know just why she recanted all the anti-mask science her much vaunted expertise had taught her and flipped to the opposite position.

you'd think such an "expert" would have clear data and be able to share it.

Read 4 tweets
17 Oct
if there is one thing that galls me, it's the self righteous sanctimony of partisan weather vane "experts" like @KrutikaKuppalli making appeals to their own authority and trying to shame others into silence

but when you pile rank hypocrisy on top of that, it becomes intolerable. Image

she loves to hector others on what an expert she is and expressing that "she knows the science" and you don't.

the issue here is that she's a partisan liar

she agreed with what scott is saying now as recently as march. she said that was science Image
it turns out she used to know the science as recently as february of this year.

scott's science. the actual science.

march really as that flight picture is from march 11. Image
Read 12 tweets
17 Oct
fun thread on the early covid response of andy cuomo. predictably, the facts tell a VERY different story than the big book of fairy tales he just published.

and this does not even get to the horrific policy of forcing cov+ patients into nursing homes then lying about it.
that policy was among the worst in the world. 6 US states did it. they are ~19% of us population. they had 45% of covid deaths. the same thing happened in spain, italy, quebec, and everywhere it was tried.

andrew did it. then he lied about it. then he tried to cover it up.
it was his order. he put his name on it. then, when asked about it, claimed to not know who did it.

then, he changed the way NY state reported nursing home deaths to hide the results of his policy.

this was deliberate and dishonest.
Read 5 tweets
16 Oct
can literally anyone be surprised by this?

we knew this all along.

this is why the NIH allowed gilead to change the primary endpoint of this trial 2 weeks before it read out: because it provided no survival benefit and they could see it in the data.…
this drug would have failed a fair trial. they literally changed the rules in the middle and found a subset (recovery) that was, frankly, not that efficacious either, and jammed it through

i'm sure it had nothing do do with the 8 people paid by gilead on the NIH panel for covid Image
how is that not a massive conflict of interest?

how were these people not recused?

this was an extreme and one might even say outlandish action to take.

it does not appear to have been done with clean hands.

is that how you want your drugs approved? Image
Read 8 tweets
15 Oct
blue states and red states in the US have adopted VERY different courses of action around covid.

i have split states into categories based on voting in last 4 pres elections.

blue, red = all 4

purple = mixed, then split by current governor

no lockdown is a subset of red.
blue states saw a significantly higher rise in unemployment (555 basis points) vs red states (260 basis points) (vs feb column)

current unemployment is 287bp higher in blue states than red.

and the ratio of current unemployment to pre lockdown is 2.73 vs 1.76. (aug rate/feb)
we can normalize this to the feb rate for all states for comparison.

the red states saw less rise and are nearer to recovery.

the purple states actually fared worst early on, but those with red governors are recovering faster.

no lockdown has vastly outperformed.
Read 13 tweets
14 Oct
oh, here's a shocker.

another low information academic is unable to bring any actual facts to bear to support his absurd contention that sweden was a lockdown country and so runs and hides instead.

it's sad what the state of discourse has become at even once top universities.
this is what happens to ideas and ideologues when they live unchallenged in echo chambers.

they grow arrogant, dogmatic, and fragile.

the reason they are all so fond of silencing and censoring those who disagree with them is because their own ideas are so vapid and ill founded.
when you only allow people who agree with you to speak, your ideas undergo no evolution; they face no challenge, no selection

there is nothing against which to sharpen them

ideas with no basis in fact are allowed to survive and take root in these walled cathedrals to groupthink
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!