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.
C'est d'autant plus vrai que, même si les restrictions ont sans doute un effet, il est beaucoup moins important que ce que la plupart des gens pensent. C'est assez clair quand on regarde les données et le fait que les gens surestiment leur effet biaise le calcul coût-bénéfice.
La vérité c'est que personne ne peut quantifier exactement l'effet des restrictions, ce qui rend le calcul coût-bénéfice difficile, mais selon moi il faudrait vraiment faire des hypothèses déraisonnables pour justifier le maintien d'un tel niveau de restriction pendant des mois.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Philippe Lemoine

Philippe Lemoine 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!

PDF

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 @phl43

3 Jan
Please, stop believing in science and encourage your friends and family to do the same, it can literally save lives 🙏
Now I just have to sit and wait for the "correlation is not causation" folks to show up...
On this account, a promise made is a promise kept!
Read 7 tweets
2 Jan
The case against experts just keeps getting stronger. nytimes.com/2021/01/01/hea…
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 🤷‍♂️
Read 4 tweets
2 Jan
Ce fil est absolument sidérant mais très instructif sur l'état d'esprit de l'administration. (h/t @lstmpsmdrns)
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.
Read 5 tweets
13 Dec 20
What very intelligent people call "science" is indistinguishable from magical thinking.
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.
Read 6 tweets
11 Dec 20
Beautiful. (h/t @Scientific_Bird) ImageImageImageImage
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… ImageImageImage
Read 5 tweets
5 Dec 20
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
Read 23 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!