It would be a lot easier to take the "lockdown skeptics" more seriously if they didn't insist on making continuous, basic errors
-
-
I find it much closer. If I play a hardcore Bayesian advocate and say that a population wide effect captured in a number (CFR, IFR, etc.) is an ecological fallacy. Then argument, that I dont accept the methods of inference made on top of unreliable data.
-
And forget Yeadon, I say this in light of your original post. Im highlighting why you would never be able to plug in to a "skeptic" discourse or whatever. And I tell them the same thing, because they frame the same kind of question.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.