At the turn of the year, most commentators expected the current wave of the coronavirus to keep growing. Instead new cases have plummeted over the past six weeks.
Why? No one really knows.
A year into this, we remain strikingly bad at forecasting the trajectory of the pandemic.
There are lots of other puzzles around the world:
Why is India doing so much better than Europe or the United States?
Why are cases in Europe not falling nearly as quickly as in America?
Why did Manaus in Brazil do extremely well for a while and is now doing extremely badly?
After the fact, we can come up with all kinds of retrospective explanations for these events. I have potential explanations for all of them in my mind.
But the vexing fact remains that most did not think of those explanations beforehand. So we keep being incapable of prediction.
This does not mean that the measures we take are ineffective.
There are a lot of solid reasons to think that wearing masks, avoiding mass gatherings, and so on makes a real difference.
But we should own how bad we are at this. I would not want to predict what happens next...
Some folks here rewriting history on the fly.
As recently as January 6th, the CDC's average forecast of nationwide cases was that they would remain roughly steady for the coming weeks.
The idea that people knew cases would rapidly decline after the holiday spike is just wrong.
My point isn't to play gotcha with journalists or scientists.
Predicting an epidemic is incredibly hard! I certainly didn't see the decline coming.
But it's important to have an accurate sense of the state of our knowledge. And the sad truth is: we still suck at prediction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you spend a lot of time among highly political people, it's tempting to think that, say, ~60% of the country is liberal or progressive, and ~40% moderate or conservative.
Now, there are some things small groups can push through even though much of the population opposes it.
But I think that a lot of people currently overestimate how much the very small group of true progressives can accomplish against the will of the majority over the long run.
And, no, moderates are not a cohesive political group that are united in their love of Joe Biden or Mitt Romney.
But, no, the vast majority of them aren't secret progressives who love AOC either.
If she happens to offend her peers, who are we to stop the university from expelling her, correct?
One more reason why we need a real *culture* of free speech—and why many cases should worry us even if they don't violate the First Amendment .
(Since this student goes to a state university, her case technically does fall under the First Amendment.
But if an influential private institution like Harvard University threw her out over these social media posts, I would find that similarly objectionable.)
Also, yet another reminder: Anyone who thinks that these irrational reprisals will always hit "the right people" is deeply naive.
As many people believe QAnon is "at least somewhat" accurate today as believed that the moon landing was fake in 1999.
The lesson of QAnon is not that Americans have grown more willing to believe crazy stuff. It's that 6 percent have *always* been willing to believe crazy stuff.
As Gallup wrote in 1999:
"Taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals. [But] it is not unusual to find that many people in the typical poll agree with almost any question... The best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread."
"33% believe there’s a government conspiracy to cover up the truth about the North Dakota crash. There was no unusual crash in North Dakota. Researchers included it as a placebo to see if people would endorse a conspiracy theory that didn’t exist. 33% did"slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/bus…
A Pakistani-American doctor was fired *and is being prosecuted* because he gave an opened vaccine to anyone he could find rather than letting it go to waste.
Apparently, it would have been more "equitable" to throw the vaccine out.
Amazing how many people have gone from "allowing internet providers to transmit video content at higher speed than other kind of content would be the end of the internet" to "just let the tech companies de-platform whatever they happen to dislike lol" in less than five years.
(And as with most large-scale political shifts that involve people switching their positions but not which side they are on, I bet that most people of whom this is true are genuinely unaware that they used to believe something diametrically opposed to their current position.)
Yes, there are differences between ISPs and social networks. But:
1) The main argument for net neutrality was that any commercial entity prioritize some form of content would impede speech.
2) Social networks, when acting in concert, are functionally very similar to a monopoly.