tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3722863622293171903..comments2024-03-28T10:44:57.324-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The lockdown and appeals to authorityEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32793771211508535282020-05-24T08:18:35.626-07:002020-05-24T08:18:35.626-07:00Tony,
You could be right here, I have not examine...Tony,<br /><br />You could be right here, I have not examined this distribution in a while. Offhand, I see the standard deviation is about sqrt(lambda), so a deviation of thousands on a population of tens of thousands is a little large.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54518892530472322182020-05-24T08:12:43.127-07:002020-05-24T08:12:43.127-07:00Well said.Well said.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62667583566908844442020-05-23T20:26:15.576-07:002020-05-23T20:26:15.576-07:00O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us. To see our...O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us! Lieutenant Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46788818378045808952020-05-23T11:52:44.761-07:002020-05-23T11:52:44.761-07:00I recognized the work-week pattern, and I discount...I recognized the work-week pattern, and I discounted it for the comments above. The Poisson distribution - to the extent it applies here - would not account for the jumps we see here. It would well account for the pattern at any one hospital, yes. When you have 1000 facilities, we shouldn't have that large a variance one day to the next, they should dampen out the oscillations. The more facilities, the more regular should be the totals. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2480987397343287672020-05-23T09:08:16.960-07:002020-05-23T09:08:16.960-07:00Daily new case reports follow a weekly cycle, typi...Daily new case reports follow a weekly cycle, typically with peak numbers on Friday and minimum numbers on Monday.<br />https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/<br />Fri, April 24-peak<br />Mon, April 27-min<br />Fri, May 1-peak<br />Mon, May 4-min<br /><br />There are some small variations to this pattern but there seems to be a connection between the work week and the processing and reporting of reports and data.<br /><br />The CDC data shows a similar weekly pattern of reported new cases.<br /><br />That's why we look at trend lines and don't get too excited about day to day variations.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83115708011497716832020-05-23T07:37:27.207-07:002020-05-23T07:37:27.207-07:00Tony,
One_Brow, it is obvious that CDC's "...Tony,<br /><i>One_Brow, it is obvious that CDC's "specific standards" are resulting in bad aggregation of data: you don't have cases of an actual jump of 50% from one day to the next, and then a drop of 50% the following day. Anybody can see that some of the numbers reported for April 6 must really represent people for April 7. </i><br /><br />Ihaven't played around with the Poisson probability distribution in a while, but from what I recall, that kind of variability (50% drop) is quite possible from a consistent probability situation when numbers are only in the thousands. However, you should probably not take my word. Ask a friendly statistician whom you trust.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24486542409644365522020-05-23T07:33:39.251-07:002020-05-23T07:33:39.251-07:00Lieutenant Dan,
That seems extreme. My kids cont...Lieutenant Dan,<br /><br />That seems extreme. My kids continued school during the lock down, they just did it from home. I can remember when home schooling was a popular idea among conservatives.<br /><br />Fortunately, you don't need to worry about anyone on this site labeling you a troll, you're far too much in agreement with them.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36124874098170630622020-05-22T16:51:18.174-07:002020-05-22T16:51:18.174-07:00One_Brow, it is obvious that CDC's "speci...One_Brow, it is obvious that CDC's "specific standards" are resulting in bad <i>aggregation</i> of data: you don't have cases of an <i>actual</i> jump of 50% from one day to the next, and then a drop of 50% the following day. Anybody can see that some of the numbers reported for April 6 must really represent people for April 7. If it's because hospitals and state officials are <i>unable to follow</i> CDC's standards on reporting, then CDC needs to fix their procedures. <br /><br />I accept that other sites may have initially been using different standards or criteria. But the experts should all be talking to each other, and by this point they should have reached some relatively accepted conclusions at least with respect to SOME of the causes of difference, if not all. After all, the number of original reports (per day) is not in the millions - each hospital and or facility is presumably reporting to the county health officials, and each county is presumably reporting to state health officials. World-o-meter and Johns Hopkins U, etc, are not calling up every hospital and every nursing home on a daily basis to get that entity's report, and even if they were, I would think that each facility would report <i>the same</i> number to each stat organization's callers for the day. Unless World-o-meter is talking to whatever orderly answers the phone, and JHU is talking to the person who orders laundry soap. <br /><br />I agree that there is no need to smooth the graph <b>arbitrarily</b>. However, there are certainly extensive and well-founded sets of criteria for smoothing graph in lots and lots of data applications, and CDC is no stranger to doing so: it smooths graphs of death rates and such all the time. As it is, the "noise" of the graph actually makes it more difficult to see week-to-week trends, which is (I presume) where the real "information" of the graph resides, since it doesn't reside at the daily level. If they put out a mortality table graph that hinked around like this, they would be laughed out of business. (One way to deal with it is to put out the smoothed graph, and then simply NOTE that the raw(ish) data is available in a table accessed through another click or two. That way they aren't "hiding" anything from anyone who actually needs to check the raw(ish) data.) Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85342298090338703372020-05-22T15:18:13.282-07:002020-05-22T15:18:13.282-07:00Stockholm is not twice the size of Oslo, Copenhage...Stockholm is not twice the size of Oslo, Copenhagen, or Helsinki. It's bigger, but not by that much. Also bear in mind the population of Sweden is about double that of Denmark, Norway, or Finland.<br /><br />City Population Urban Metropolitan<br /><br />Stockholm 1M 1.6M 2.4M<br />Oslo 700k 1M 1.7M<br />Copenhagen 800k 1.3M 2M<br />Helsinki 650k 1.3M 1.5M<br /><br />Its nearest neighbors are clearly a better standard of comparison (although admittedly not perfect) due to population density, etc., then, say, France, due to huge population density in many places.<br />LonelyProfessornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29277108748939408122020-05-22T14:55:47.127-07:002020-05-22T14:55:47.127-07:00That certainly makes sense. Let's shut down th...That certainly makes sense. Let's shut down the whole school system, unlike Denmark or Taiwan, on the off-chance. Perhaps we can do this anytime a new disease or issue pops up, or even an old one we are unsure about? You are sure as smart as my friend Forrest.Lieutenant Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81362478887350439382020-05-22T06:52:36.258-07:002020-05-22T06:52:36.258-07:00Lieutenant Dan,
Assuming that number is true, wou...Lieutenant Dan,<br /><br />Assuming that number is true, would ytou agree that we understand the flu much better than covid19, and know both how to tret it better and how to better avoid long-term complications?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19757149327735225132020-05-22T06:51:16.345-07:002020-05-22T06:51:16.345-07:00Anonymous,
Another reply. This time to clarify “co...Anonymous,<br /><i>Another reply. This time to clarify “competent expert” in the previous:<br /><br />I'm using “competent expert” as a technical term similar to “competent practitioner” from the literature on disagreement. A competent practitioner isn't the same as an epistemic peer. x may be an epistemic peer of y, but incompetent. I won't try for a tight definition of competent practitioner here, but if x is a competent practitioner in a field, he's a sincere truthseeker, not a quibbler or a sophist; he's of sound mind; he knows logic and the empirical disciplines relevant to the subject he's discussing; he's read the relevant literature; and so on.</i><br /><br />While I agree that we needn't bother with a tight definition, would you also agree that, for fields of complex and specialized knowledge, the best judges of the competent practitioners are their epistemic peers? That when one peer says things contrary to the basic consensus of their peers, we should consider that as one possible marker of a lack of competency?<br /><br /><i>The point is that if you examine each of the against experts individually (especially the more august ones), you find that as far as we can tell they're at least as likely competent as any other expert. You can, in spite of this, still deny that they're competent. (You must to avoid the argument.) But then people are prima facie justified in questioning whether you value the opinion of experts in the impartial way you say you do.</i><br /><br />That's fair, as far as it goes. Looking at what I posted, I fully acknowledged the competency of Dr. Bhakdi. I did not go into details on my questioning of the others in the first six. I could do so, to make it clear that it was the points they were making that I found wanting. I'm not sure you'd want to read all that, these comments are long enough as it is.<br /><br /><i>This is besides the point, and suggests that you've misunderstood the argument.</i><br /><br />Perhaps. In my experience, humans too often use their historical decisions to focus their thinking and make sure their seemingly rational decisions fit their historical decisions, and this is no different for seemingly competent practitioners. So I believe I understand your point, I just feel it does not reflect what seemingly competent practitioners actually do.<br /><br /><i>In so far as it's used as justification for lockdown, if we were to apply this degree of caution consistently, we wouldn't be able to so much as leave the house in the morning.</i><br /><br />I know the dangers of riding the train, the elevator, or walking. I've lived with them all my life. I can manage them. We don't know the true dangers of covid19 yet.<br /><br /><i>(There is also a broad sense, which draws on knowledge from economics and other disciplines as well as medicine, in which it's not clear that we are, in fact, operating on the side of caution.)</i><br /><br />I absolutely agree there needs to be careful consideration of the effects of any choice we make, including the economic effects thereof. That's why most states are working on lifting the lock down in stages.<br /><br /><i>You need to justify assertions like this. Prima facie, it's incredible.</i><br /><br />You find the effects of scarred lungs incredible? Hmmmm.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89380317893541534632020-05-22T06:32:01.573-07:002020-05-22T06:32:01.573-07:00David McPike,
Note here that there is no such thin...David McPike,<br /><i>Note here that there is no such thing as "the" R0 for a given disease. It's always "the R0 relative to a particular model." </i><br /><br />That seems like a quibble. I'm sure you're not arguing that the R0 is so indeterminate as to be useless. Do you agree that being more contagious does not aid in creating herd immunity?<br /><br /><i>And it would seem that the same thing applies to "herd immunity." It is clearly not all or nothing.</i><br /><br />Again, going by the example of measles, what we see is a very large drop-off in the effectiveness of herd immunity corresponding to a very small change in the percentage of immune people. When 95% are immune, the measles will at most spread to a couple of others, when 85% are immune, hundreds or thousands catch them, reaching almost everyone not immune or in quarantine. So, while it may not be all or nothing, the range between all and nothing can be very slim.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47967410187439827472020-05-22T06:25:31.627-07:002020-05-22T06:25:31.627-07:00Different Anonymous,
You don't have to guess, ...Different Anonymous,<br /><i>You don't have to guess, re: Sweden. There are, literally, Southern states that implemented Sweden-like policies because of worries about their weak economies. As far as I know, no piles of skulls in them yet.</i><br /><br />Nor would anyone have predicted piles of cases, much less piles of skulls, three weeks after the reopening. If there is almost no spread by the end of June, they will have been vindicated. I don't have the details' for all I know some of these states have a vigorous system of testing and tracing in place, in which case they were ready anyhow.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27030838107591655222020-05-22T02:04:50.072-07:002020-05-22T02:04:50.072-07:00Those under 25 are several times more at risk from...Those under 25 are several times more at risk from the flu. Perhaps we should shut the schools until we get that situation out of control? Lieutenant Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18241996592782791982020-05-21T20:33:06.044-07:002020-05-21T20:33:06.044-07:00@Anon
I mean, economy, political organization, ge...@Anon<br /><br />I mean, economy, political organization, genetics, culture etc, these seems like pretty important factors on the crisis and Sweden seems more similar to Finland or Norway that to France or England on these things. If Sweden is similar enough to France or EUA that we can make a comparison, its Nordic brothers are useful too for sure.<br /><br />But i agree now that we need to look on the long run to see if this strategy works for Sweden. My initial impression was probably influenced by the fact that the health in my country sucks, so the Sweden rote would be suicide for us.<br /><br />@DavidMcPike<br /><br />"That claim (and much of the ongoing clueless argumentation in favour of the lockdown) seems to be based on the evidently false (indeed absurd) premise that the appropriate aim of any policy must be to minimize the total number of deaths attributed (directly) to coronavirus (within any given policy jurisdiction)"<br /><br />That is not my idea, but i see how my post could sugest that, it happens.<br /><br />What i say is, Sweden right now is losting more people that its neughbours and its economy seems to be hurt as well, even if less that the others:https://www.thelocal.se/20200518/swedens-lack-of-lockdown-wont-be-enough-to-save-the-economy-experts-warn<br /><br />I agree that it is wrong to judge right now, but it is the first impression we get, even if a wrong impression.<br /><br />And please, saying that the lockdown proponent do not know about the economic effects of the lockdown is really diferent than saying that the lockdown oponent do not care about the death people? Don't be a dick, not everyone cares about petty american politics.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63727504563792929072020-05-21T19:59:03.335-07:002020-05-21T19:59:03.335-07:00One Brow,
"every single right granted by the ...One Brow,<br />"every single right granted by the US Constitution"<br />The US constitution does not grant rights, it limits or enumerates preexisting rights. This is made clear in The Declaration of Independence (not a controlling legal document but an indicator of original intent), and more importantly in the 9th and 10th amendments.<br /><br />"We have no absolute rights."<br />Yes, and in times of riots or natural disasters the local authorities are within their legal powers to issue temporary restrictions on public movements, such as curfews, restrictions against gatherings, and restrictions against appearing in public.<br /><br />Further, the health department has the legal authority to close down businesses and restrict entry to locations that are determined to present substantial risk to the health and lives of the public.<br /><br />I remember one day when I was a kid in the summer out of school and my dad stayed home on a weekday. So I asked why he was staying home, a very unusual event, then he told me that there is a riot going on right now and the mayor has ordered all workers to stay home and has issued a 24 hour a day curfew.<br /><br />I am sure the mayor did not relish the loss of income, tax revenue, and freedom that would obviously result from the order, but he had the legal authority, there was a substantial threat to public safety, so he issued the order.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89956661971589649242020-05-21T18:07:16.050-07:002020-05-21T18:07:16.050-07:00Here are clarifications of a couple parts of my po...Here are clarifications of a couple parts of my post:<br /><br /><i>I'm using “competent expert” as a technical term similar to “competent practitioner” from the literature on disagreement. A competent practitioner isn't the same as an epistemic peer. x may be an epistemic peer of y, but incompetent. I won't try for a tight definition of competent practitioner here, but if x is a competent practitioner in a field, he's a sincere truthseeker, not a quibbler or a sophist; he's of sound mind; he knows logic and the empirical disciplines relevant to the subject he's discussing; he's read the relevant literature; and so on.</i><br /><br />Likewise, he's not a liar or morally insufficient in some relevant way, etc.<br /><br />So, I distinguish between "experts" and "competent experts" in my earlier comment, where a competent expert is an expert who is also a competent practitioner in the above sense.<br /><br /><i>In so far as it's used as justification for lockdown, if we were to apply this degree of caution consistently, we wouldn't be able to so much as leave the house in the morning.</i><br /><br />The point I was making here would have been clearer had I written:<br /><br /><i>In so far as it's used as justification for lockdown, if we were to apply this degree of caution consistently, we wouldn't be able to so much as [get out of bed in the morning].</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29635068984730107722020-05-21T16:38:55.579-07:002020-05-21T16:38:55.579-07:00You don't have to guess, re: Sweden. There are...You don't have to guess, re: Sweden. There are, literally, Southern states that implemented Sweden-like policies because of worries about their weak economies. As far as I know, no piles of skulls in them yet.<br /><br /><i>Muh Freedumb</i><br /><br />I share your distaste for the sweaty, beer drinking, gun-totin', almost self-parodying aesthetic of a lot of Americans, but (even if it sometimes leads to excesses) I wish more of us had their love of freedom. I sometimes think that Huxley, not Orwell, had the deeper insight into human psychology. Orwell had mass surveillance and the oppressive police state; Huxley said that we would come to love our slavery. I'm wary of how easily people in some countries have let themselves be herded indoors. Anyway, I wish you wouldn't mock this particular aspect of American identity, especially when there is so much else so easy to pick on.Different Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67781208802210619982020-05-21T16:17:49.554-07:002020-05-21T16:17:49.554-07:00Another reply. This time to clarify “competent exp...Another reply. This time to clarify “competent expert” in the previous:<br /><br /><i>Being a competent expert (which of the first in that article, seemingly only applies to Dr. Bhakdi) in no way prevents one from being a quibbler, liar, nor contrarian. I agree that competent experts are usually not cranks, but they can be very unscientific and/or irrational in their beliefs and presentations. For an example (not related to this discussion, but that we likely agree upon), we can look to Dr. Wells and Dr. Behe of the Discovery Institute.</i><br /><br />I'm using “competent expert” as a technical term similar to “competent practitioner” from the literature on disagreement. A competent practitioner isn't the same as an epistemic peer. <i>x</i> may be an epistemic peer of <i>y</i>, but incompetent. I won't try for a tight definition of competent practitioner here, but if <i>x</i> is a competent practitioner in a field, he's a sincere truthseeker, not a quibbler or a sophist; he's of sound mind; he knows logic and the empirical disciplines relevant to the subject he's discussing; he's read the relevant literature; and so on.<br /><br />The point is that if you examine each of the against experts individually (especially the more august ones), you find that <i>as far as we can tell</i> they're at least as likely competent as any other expert. You can, in spite of this, still deny that they're competent. (You must to avoid the argument.) But then people are prima facie justified in questioning whether you value the opinion of experts in the impartial way you say you do.<br /><br /><i>I find your divide of historical decisions vs. rational decisions to be arbitrary; in practice most decisions will be some combination of the two.</i><br /><br />This is besides the point, and suggests that you've misunderstood the argument.<br /><br /><i>We don't know the long-term effects of this virus on anyone, yet. I agree we have been operating on the side of caution, because it's what we don't know that we don't know that is the most dangerous (expect, to paraphrase Twain, for what we do know that is untrue). </i><br /><br />In so far as it's used as justification for lockdown, if we were to apply this degree of caution consistently, we wouldn't be able to so much as leave the house in the morning.<br /><br />(There is also a broad sense, which draws on knowledge from economics and other disciplines as well as medicine, in which it's not clear that we are, in fact, operating on the side of caution.)<br /><br /><i>The mistakes of too much lockdown will fade by the end of the next school year. The mistakes of too much exposure could last a life-time. On a risk-reward ratio, that's a big skew.</i><br /><br />You need to justify assertions like this. Prima facie, it's incredible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1339992844702529352020-05-21T14:52:37.954-07:002020-05-21T14:52:37.954-07:00I asked this above, but what are the specific reas...I asked this above, but what are the specific reasons for comparing Sweden to those other countries? Just geography and a vague idea of social and economic similarity? That seems superficial at best. Stockholm is twice the size of the largest cities in those nations, to take just one possibly important difference. Also Sweden messed up its nursing home policy as bad as Cuomo did, and a huge proportion of deaths from this virus have been in nursing homes. That is a separate issue from its policy on lock downs. Also someone above posted an article doubtful of Sweden that mentioned that there may be issues with the Swedish stats. <br /><br />Remember also we need to judge Sweden over a year, not now. Its policy will inevitably see relatively high deaths early on. The question is whether it will see more over the long term.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81897692601341177372020-05-21T14:36:28.352-07:002020-05-21T14:36:28.352-07:00This is entirely typical of anti-lockdown argument...This is entirely typical of anti-lockdown arguments in that it is simply brazenly intellectually dishonest but plays to the uneducated and/or willfully ignorant crowd to score silly "gotcha" points in order to try to show that those educamated pointy-headed intellectuals are all blowing smoke.<br /><br />Yes there is such a thing as "the" R0 of the coronavirus. You can read for yourself its definition here, which you could have found via Google after two seconds.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number<br /><br />And yes, the article does use the terminology "THE basic reproduction number" in case you're interested. Yes, I'm quite aware that "the" R0 is not constant in time or space; that is PRECISELY the point of social distancing measures: they reduce R0. Your picking out of the term "the" in order to attempt to play to the crowd and indicate that I didn't realize R0 wasn't a constant is beyond silly. It's really jaw-droppingly stupid in fact.<br /><br />Similarly when I said that these numbers would indicate over a million deaths over the next few months indicated it being "right to hit the panic button". You call that "utterly without substance". So, exactly how many deaths would need to happen over what period of time before you would admit there was something actually of substance, I would like to know. "Hitting the panic button" is a colloquialism for the necessity of drastic measures, as you well know. The fact that I didn't, in that sentence, exactly spell out the drastic measures needed doesn't make my argument "utterly without substance". This is also jaw-droppingly stupid.<br /><br />What was, and is, necessary, are social distancing measures in order to reduce R0. Because if it isn't, over a million will die in the U.S. over the next few months. Now again, you might not find a million dead a "real argument", but I think most people will, because they're decent human beings and not sociopaths.<br /><br />Oh, and as for the facts about Sweden? Many more cases and many more deaths per capita as compared to their Scandanavian neighbors Norway, Finland, and Denmark. And this, with a very large portion of the population voluntarily practicing at least some social distancing measures even without being forced to by law, which certainly wouldn't happen in this country because "Muh Freedumb".<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />LonelyProfessornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33759340047295080392020-05-21T14:02:39.288-07:002020-05-21T14:02:39.288-07:00Note here that there is no such thing as "the...Note here that there is no such thing as "the" R0 for a given disease. It's always "the R0 relative to a particular model." The number is always dependent on the situation (thus the differential response in Amerindian populations). And it would seem that the same thing applies to "herd immunity." It is clearly not all or nothing.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8675463549597663552020-05-21T13:48:09.256-07:002020-05-21T13:48:09.256-07:00There is no such thing as "the" R0 of th...There is no such thing as "the" R0 of the coronavirus, is there? (You appear to have no idea what you're talking about. Am I mistaken?) Your argument that it was "right to hit the panic button" is utterly without substance: You don't clearly indicate what you are arguing for. (Is it ever helpful to "panic"?) Nor do you provide any real argument for whatever it is. (You want "facts," look at Sweden, and drop the faux fatalism.) This is entirely typical of lockdown arguments.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79358256297672598922020-05-21T13:34:22.136-07:002020-05-21T13:34:22.136-07:00"I agree that we should wait more time to see..."I agree that we should wait more time to see if the swedish method works or not, i'am just saying that RIGHT NOW it seems that it was a bad idea."<br /><br />That claim (and much of the ongoing clueless argumentation in favour of the lockdown) seems to be based on the evidently false (indeed absurd) premise that the appropriate aim of any policy must be to minimize the total number of deaths attributed (directly) to coronavirus (within any given policy jurisdiction). And never mind about the big picture, global repercussions ("sunk costs" and all that), such as lost jobs in the billions, extreme poverty (entailing starvation, malnutrition, disease, crime, etc.) in the hundreds of millions, etc. All that matters is that it's possible (just possible, based on a superficial glance at a couple of statistics) that there might have been, say, 2000 or 2500 fewer deaths attributed to coronavirus in Sweden this year, if only they had tried to be more like Denmark or Finland. If that's where you're at with your thinking about this issue, you need to go back and read the rather obvious points about the need for phronesis recited by the good professor in this blog post.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.com