Thank you. I'm trying to say if there is a catastrophic tail, let's not assume we will land in the middle, even if we probably will. (I mean, duh, "probably").
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @JSEllenberg
Very illuminating piece, but is that how we normally construct policy? i.e. assuming a catastrophic tail and planning accordingly? There's a whole host of probabalistic assumptions made in any policy. Do govts automatically use the most catastrophic outcome as policy baseline?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But a catastrophic tail is not being "assumed" here. We have very strong reasons -- both from models and just from looking at the world around us -- for believing it exists.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The tail risk is based on models. There are assumptions built into those models. Not all are correct. There's a lot we don't yet know about this pandemic. Not even clear whether we are accurately measuring COVID-19 lethality: https://swprs.org/open-letter-from-professor-sucharit-bhakdi-to-german-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Mauerback @JWMason1 and
You don’t need any model to craft a policy response. We can observe that in every cluster that breaks out into community transmission, the hospital system is overwhelmed. The fatality rate when ventilators are not available is high. You just need the precautionary principle.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @RomanchukBrian @JWMason1 and
That's another slogan. What does it mean to adopt a "precautionary principle"? Does it mean total economic shutdown and quarantine a la Italy? Or does it mean widespread randomised testing and selective quarantines as in Taiwan?
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Mauerback @RomanchukBrian and
The precautionary principle is: do all of the above. What’s so difficult about this? One doesn’t have to choose among steps to take based on some stupid economic model. And they’re all stupid in their own way. Suggesting one does have to choose is a huge part of the problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wgoggin @RomanchukBrian and
With greatest respect, that's wrong IMO. Actual experts stress that we know little and most of the numbers carelessly thrown about are very rough estimates: See “A fiasco in the making?” by John P. A. Ioannidis (professor of epidemiology, Stanford) at STAT https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ …
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Mauerback @wgoggin and
If Ioannidis is right, it won't be a fiasco. If he is wrong, it will be a catastrophe beyond imagining. Thus, the decision is clear for the moment. We can reassess after a random national/global serosurvey.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
"A catastrophe beyond imagining"? Worse than the Great Depression? Worse than WW2? Worse than what the current policies might bring forth?pic.twitter.com/xvEfucfoCv
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, worse than all those, potentially. I don't think he is right, and neither do many epidemiologists but... A novel coronavirus has the potential to wreak havoc beyond imagining and also *bring on* things like Great Depression and world wars. (History has examples of this!)
-
-
This is another interesting analysis, courtesy of
@MrMarkEThomas https://99-percent.org/3019-2/2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Mauerback @zeynep and
Interesting article (and the graphic is terrific) but it contains a huge assumption for which we really have no data yet (I believe, as a rank amateur): herd immunity.pic.twitter.com/zhWOOsSmzV
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.