Michael Hardner

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.

Let's get serious for a second. About having a kid who can't talk normally? One who has to go through therapy to get up to developmental levels. Cost in the damage of every one being shut in and not socializing? We lost a lot. This was a major traumatic event that people really haven't acknowledged. For sure it was worse than 9/11 or world War II. My assessment only. But the same people who insist that they're independent thinkers, call folks sheep for following Public health recommendations and making their own choices. I gave more than enough attention to new claims. They would go from limited scope, as in "Needs more Information on this" To clearly false and wild claims I'm comfortable with the choices I made, and for the most part the conclusions and assessments I made of others.

Why do you think that ? Parents were quite worried about it. I was. But we didn't know how bad Covid would be on them either. It's pretty near-sighted to look back at everything and frame it as the powers that be forcing ideas on us. We were all Googling and looking at what was happening it and discussing it - everywhere.

The whole "blaming" thing is very low-brow to me. Blaming other generations, blaming cultural groups, blaming political ideologies even. Good politics should cross demographic lines to produce best of breed solutions...

Awesome thread guys !

It's refreshing to see an insult-free and substantive thread on here finally

We used to grant LICENSES to media channels and held them to high standards of behaviour. What happened ? If you started your own TV network and just started sending disinfo and pictures of politicians dressed up like Stalin you wouldn't get on the air...

I agree that statistics are a valid starting point. ( By the way, have you got any regarding literacy?) But participation trophies have been around for 40 years now. You can't make the jump from observation to cause just by saying so.

He knew what computers would do.

I'm a big fan of his work.

This is how you do it. You put together two or more knowledgeable experts who can explain the points, and the assumptions to a thinking public. They can break down The subject in the public forum and people can make up their own minds based on the points made. It would be even better if You did it online. And you used a broad swath of the thinking public To bring their expertise to the discussion. It would be amazing actually You could call it regarding politics or repolitics for short.. Of course you'd have to ban the chuds. And the people who don't think of themselves as Chuds but somehow get angry when you mention Chuds... 🤔

Right, but anyone presenting a case would still refer to said assumptions, methods, etc. That's not appealing to authority although it can lead to that.

Also appeal to authority is a fallacy. That means it's an appeal to authority and nothing else. Presumably, institutions and leaders from public health and science have studies and data to backup their positions as well..

People who believe in being static. The Opposite of Progressive I'm guessing.

Me too, since so many here appear to be younger 🤣

All people suffer from it but not all recognize that. I have strong visceral reactions to people who think that it's okay to be this way.

Intellectual and spiritual laziness seems to be ok with most people. If you were physically unfit though, people would look down at you...