The headline and people's comments make the decision far more radical than it is. Here is what the recommendation actually says. Unless someone gives me a good argument to the contrary, which none of the experts quoted in the article did, this strikes me as eminently reasonable.
Now, I have almost no domain-specific knowledge and therefore I could easily be made to change my mind, but it will still take more than obvious fallacies even if they're spouted by very intelligent experts 🤷♂️
A good summary of the debates on how to deal with the pandemic since the beginning. Goofus is public health experts. Gallant is random people with an anime profile picture and a brain.
Puisque le gouvernement ne prévoit apparemment pas de vacciner plus de 4 millions de personnes d'ici cet été, c'est de la folie de maintenir toutes les restrictions, on ne peut pas rester comme ça pendant des mois. Il faut accepter que des gens vont mourir et commencer à rouvrir.
Il faut arrêter de laisser croire que, si on commence à lever les restrictions, la propagation du virus va augmenter jusqu'à saturation comme dans une population naïve. Ça n'arrivera pas avec le R qu'on a même quand beaucoup plus de trucs sont ouverts qu'à l'heure actuelle.
Il y a plein d'exemples qui montrent que, même avec des restrictions beaucoup moins importantes, les comportements s'ajustent quand ça pète et que R finit par redescendre sous 1. Il y aura plus de morts, mais on ne peut pas rester enfermés pendant des mois, ça ne justifie pas ça.
Résumé : "Nous avons pris une décision complètement débile au départ et on s'y est tenu, raison pour laquelle nous sommes désormais en train de faire des choses complètement débiles, donc réfléchissez un peu avant de nous accuser d'être débiles." (personne très intelligente)
Comme je disais hier, beaucoup de gens croient que le gouvernement et les gens de l'administration mentent quand ils se défendent contre l'accusation d'incompétence, mais pas du tout. Ils sont tellement hors-sol qu'ils sont sincèrement convaincus d'être injustement critiqués.
By the way, I see that all the pro-lockdown hysterics are outraged that Johnson is still listening to crackpots like Gupta, but what they're effectively arguing is that instead they listen to the geniuses from Imperial College, as if their track-record were any better.
Not only are the researchers at ICL who were arguing that a 2-week long lockdown in September would magically make later restrictions unnecessary are evidently incompetent, but they're also intellectually dishonest, as I showed in the post below.
Now, by the Law of Lemoine about papers that purport to show the world is terribly unfair, if I go and dig into the paper's data/tables, I'm almost guaranteed to find something politically incorrect. I should work but I don't know if I'll resist the temptation.
Okay I couldn't resist and I didn't have to look for very long before the Law of Lemoine was once again vindicated 😂 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
The reception of this post has been very positive, thanks a lot to everyone for your kind words and for sharing it, but I also got some of the same criticisms I get every time I publish something, so I wanted to address them quickly. 1/n
So one complaint I get almost every time is that, if I think I'm right, then I should try to get my work published in a peer reviewed journal. The suggestion is often that, if I don't, it's because I'm afraid it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. 2/n
There are many reasons why I generally don't want to submit my work to peer reviewed journals, some of which I discuss below, but let me start by saying that my fear of the towering intellects who run Nature and saw no problems with Flaxman et al.'s paper is not one of them. 3/n