The countermeasures against terrorism – including the ‘war on terror’ – were extreme:
It cost trillions of dollars, killed tens of thousand of people, made millions to refugees, reduced civil liberties, legitimized intrusions into privacy.
And it failed entirely to reduce fear.
This looks unfortunately like a huge success for the terrorists.
As Scott Atran says “Perhaps never in the history of human conflict have so few people with so few actual means and capabilities frightened so many.”
As to the risk of dying from terrorism, Americans were extremely unlikely to die from terrorism before the war on terror, since then the share who died from terrorism has slightly increased, but it is still extremely rare.
It’s always fair to be skeptical to survey results.
But on the other hand, we have to have an explanation for how it’s possible that the US population is willing to support the extremely costly and intrusive counterterrorism measures.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The European CDC will soon be switching to weekly data and I see several people concerned that this would create problems for Our World in Data and those who rely on data that they obtain via us.
What the ECDC was pulling off in the last months was really phenomenal.
Very early in the pandemic – when alternative data sources were often extremely bad – the colleagues there woke up at 4 o'clock every morning to bring together reliable data from countries around the world.
We would definitely prefer if the ECDC would continue doing this work, but I very much understand that it needs to come to an end. And it can because there are good alternatives for case and death data available.
How expensive is it to limit global warming to less than 2°C?
The IPCC reports that the median cost to limit warming to less than 2°C corresponds to an annualized reduction of economic growth by 0.06%, relative to a baseline annual growth of 1.6-3%
If the world economy would grow 1.6% the world economy in 100 years would be 1.016^100=489% the size of today’s economy.
With measures in place to limit warming to 2C, growth would be 0.06% smaller – i.e. 1.54%.
The world economy would then ‘only' be 461% of the size of today.
In case the world economy would grow 3% per year the world economy in 100 years would be 1.03^100=1922% the size of today’s economy.
With measures to limit warming to 2C, growth would be 0.06% smaller – i.e. 2.94%.
The economy would then ‘only' be 1813% the size of today.
If a country had actually achieved herd immunity you would find it in the bottom right corner of this chart.
The country would have a high cumulative case rate and a low current case rate.
1/ If we want to avoid situations in this pandemic in which we have to make the decision between more people dying or lockdown, we should increase testing.
It needs to be very easy for people to find out whether they are infectious or not.
2/ The number of tests is not the relevant statistic – a large outbreak needs more tests.
How many tests are needed depends on how many people are infected.
That’s the ratio of cases to tests: the *positive rate of tests* is telling us whether a country does enough tests.
3/ If a country tests enough, the positive rate is low. The country does many tests for each case they find.
You want to be in a situation where it's easy for people to find out whether they are infectious.
Whether you achieved that is visible in a low positive rate.