Reminder: Anyone who says Sweden was smarter than the United States in its coronavirus management doesn't understand how management works. Lots of countries guessed on strategy, and some were luckier than others. That is not an indication of skill. Not even a little.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
But the people who rejected Wuhan extremes did so based on science. Science never suggested we should react to this virus so extremely. A bunch of scientists did, but it was because of their interpretation of complex predictive models, not actual science. The countries that did
3 replies 2 retweets 72 likes -
Replying to @AaronPogue
There was no science in the early days, just misinformation. It was all guessing. And knowing which "experts" to trust turned out to be guessing too.
30 replies 5 retweets 75 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Science tells us what to do with misinformation. You're right that science wasn't telling us how to react, because science said, "We don't know yet. Stay steady, pay attention, and hope for the best." Basically, wash your hands and stay home if you're sick. That's was science.
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @AaronPogue
Risk management is above science. Everyone who followed science alone was stupid.
8 replies 3 retweets 49 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
This comment feels right, but it doesn't really make sense. Science is an approach. You can do risk management scientifically, or you can do it based on something else. The only somethings else I know about are emotion, instinct, and ideology, none of which gives better results.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @AaronPogue
Then let me introduce you to risk management. For example, science doesn't KNOW whether HCQ + Zinc is effective if given early, but since the risk is vanishingly small, and the potential gain is huge, risk management suggests trying anyway. Etc.
3 replies 10 retweets 45 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
That's not science, though. That's "established facts." Science says, among other things, "Fear is many times more persuasive than our intellectual grasp of statistics, so we can expect people globally to dramatically overreact to local catastrophes. Let's see if that happens."
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @AaronPogue @ScottAdamsSays
If you were approaching your risk management scientifically (not dogmatically or socially), you saw really on that the local catastrophes only replicated where people overreacted in the same ways. The places that refused to had different results (early). If you were watching.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AaronPogue @ScottAdamsSays
Adding in "What could it hurt?" interventions is an easy way to amplify the fear, which felt like a good idea for social cooperation early, but that unscientific approach straddled us with a mountain of confirmation bias that we had to do *something.*
5 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
If science agreed on what to do, this would all be easy. The least-good take is that following science would have gotten us a better result when experts disagreed on the science.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @AaronPogue
I hear about science all the time. In 2020, there is little science that isn't politicized. I have very little faith in any area of science which crossovers into politics.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.