Michael Hardner

Honestly, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

1. Yes, number of deaths, and the fact that the entire population was locked down unlike during world War II. 2. Maybe so. 3. To what end though? Was someone trying to actually do harm? It's strange that you say there was fear-mongering, that people we're afraid, but you weren't. So who was afraid? I think people were isolated and there was stress and depression from that. That was a well-known, and felt by pretty much everyone. Propaganda just seems like the wrong word in this context. I'll leave it at that. I think I've made my case, I don't want to go back and forth back and forth back and forth with this. If you have something new to ask, go ahead.

Young kids have forgotten about it. To be honest, kids who seem really put off Are the teens to early twenties... That's a good chunk of your best years gone.

1. Well, that's your opinion then. Sure. But you do understand that I said the premise hasn't been proven right? 2. I think they're just trying to show hypocrisy. In any case, it hasn't been proven. That's my point.

My Argos 😞 lost by a LOT to Ottawa last night

1. 5. 6. Sorry I was referring to Canada. Not Japan or other countries. 2. Yes, and the deprivation and mental health issues were more pervasive for Canadians than in WW2. This is the case I'm making. 3. What people? Obviously I did think that it was a risk. 4. Are you saying that there was an official campaign to do harm? Propaganda is one of those words people use to passive aggressively imply something rather than just making a case for it.

In terms of studying applications of statistical correlation, it's a great match to the earlier post about neurotic Democrats

What about a study that says Republicans are homophobic? And again, observations aren't that useful in this arena, unless you're marketing. In other words, the ad you're planning for hunting rifles probably shouldn't include Thom of Finland type guys posing in baby blue short shorts.

Hypothesis is the key. The wisest thing I heard in the last few years is that we know less and less, as our epistemic foundations are called into question. All we can do is work around it or build on it. What does this particular observation mean? It's an observation. So we can now say.... " Well, they're a liberal so they're probably seeing a shrink". It's fair, even if unkind, to say that. And in saying it, we can reinforce the link between a real empirical study and how to engage with it in day-to-day life

Yes, that endorsement was pretty surprising. Then again, the populists were always anti-Bush. 9/11, conspiracy and all that.

More were killed by Covid and there was more deprivation.

Like when he said there could be 10,000 deaths? Everybody was making guesses early on. You need to admit your decisions are affected by an affection for the underdog, the gadfly.

1. An extreme claim. "Anyone" who "said anything" was attacked mercilessly ? At best you are exaggerating. 2. Two cruise ships isn't proof. I just looked up Ionniddis. One guy, a gadfly, who says that the official approach is wrong. So why do you believe him versus the consensus ? He sure seems to have been wrong in a few of his statements too. Was he attacked ? I think his ideas were pretty risky and, well, they weren't picked up. To say he was 'attacked' seems to imply that he had good ideas but they went against him personally. I can't see it. He seems like a gadfly with risky ideas which may be interesting... but the public officials erred on the side of safety and went for lockdown. I still think it was the right approach. 3. That sounds like it would have been an interesting exercise, were it not for a mounting emergency that was taking place - with its own logistical challenges, and requirements for experts to make quick analysis, decisions, and - yes - tradeoffs. 4. I know some people who are experts in these things and they're pretty brilliant and also caring people. I am not dismissing you, but I do think you're wrong. It's good to be skeptical of institutions, but you are second-guessing them and throwing them under the bus for how they reacted during the biggest health emergency in 100 years. It's your right to do so, but when you post about difficult topics like this and throw people who you don't know under the bus, call them liars, and decide that Public Health shouldn't be in charge of public health emergencies well... I make my decision to not agree with your opinion, I guess.

1. I will ask this one time - how ? 2. Well, people were under stress but that's not a rational response. 3. We did not know this with any degree of certainty. "The risk was to the very elderly" ? So I was crazy for keeping my kids away from crowds ? Nonsense. 4. Well he also admitted it was a mistake, so we have: He demanded/prologongued closures, denied that he did, admitted it was a mistake. The 'lie' would be that he didn't demand them. 5. No. I will listen to them next time, despite the urge for armchair Public Health epidemeologists to chime in and retroactively say they were right and perfect all along and the folks working long days/nights/weeks to figure it out were evil and/or insane.

Same here.