Epidemiological modelling is an inexact science, what we should trust is *checks notes* the economic claims of large corporations like Wesfarmers and Jim's Mowing


https://twitter.com/Melbchief/status/1302556819772960768 …
-
-
I also don't think that most epidemic modellers would argue that their models were in opposition to the perspectives of businesses - placing them in opposition is, I think, not an ideal way to get the point across
Show this thread -
It's also a bit frustrating because I absolutely agree that modelling has been treated as scientific fact when it is really quite uncertain
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Totally agree. I teach the importance of understanding stakeholders and using their data and advice in science. But no science is exact, and the false binary framing by using the term "inexact science" (in favour of less objective data) is infuriating.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.