Random thoughts
1. Matt Yglesias made a very wise observation:
To me, one of the big takeaways from this pandemic has been that in a genuinely novel situation where you need to make decisions based on imperfect evidence, listening to smart generalists has been more useful than listening to credentialed subject matter experts.
That’s also my impression. Here I’m thinking of bloggers like Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen and Razib Khan. When issues strongly impact society, the science no longer “speaks for itself”.
2. Tyler recently posted a tirade against bioethicists, written by one of his commenters. The amazing thing is that the list of errors is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no mention of the role that bioethicists play in the deaths of as many as 40,000 people per year due to the prohibition on selling kidneys.
3. People wonder why I suggest that there’d already be a million Covid deaths in America if there hadn’t been any social distancing. Actually, that’s probably an underestimate. To get a million dead in the US you need a fatality rate of 3000/million. New Jersey’s is now over 2000/million and still rising fast—and that’s with lots of social distancing.
New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts currently have the highest death rates (but not for long—the Dakotas are on a tear), because the disease spread widely in those states before it was recognized, and thus before social distancing.
If the US had not adopted social distancing in March, the disease would have quickly spread across the country. As we see in the Dakotas, even being thinly populated doesn’t prevent a disaster. And most of the deaths would have occurred quickly at a time when helpful treatments like steriods had not yet been proven effective and the IFR was significantly higher. Hospitals everywhere would have been as overwhelmed as in New York, indeed much worse, with no effective treatments at the time.
New Jersey likely won’t reach 3000/million dead before vaccines ride to the rescue, but it surely would have reached that level had social distancing not began in March, as would the entire country. This disease moves fast if unconstrained. Even Sweden did lots of social distancing. And the old can’t be protected in isolation; they interact too much with younger workers. The nursing homes in the Great Plains tried and failed.
[I am discussing social distancing here; none of this is a comment on lockdowns.]
4. Tyler linked to an excellent Ross Douthat column:
What separates these two parties is not necessarily ideology or partisanship or even loyalty to Donald Trump. (Nobody had Brian Kemp and Bill Barr, both prominent members of the first group, pegged as NeverTrumpers.) It’s all about power and responsibility: The Republicans behaving normally are the ones who have actual political and legal roles in the electoral process and its judicial aftermath, from secretaries of state and governors in states like Georgia and Arizona to Trump’s judicial appointees. The Republicans behaving radically are doing so in the knowledge — or at least the strong assumption — that their behavior is performative, an act of storytelling rather than lawmaking, a posture rather than a political act.
This postelection division of the Republican Party extends and deepens an important trend in American politics: The cultivation of a kind of “dreampolitik” (to steal a word from Joan Didion), a politics of partisan fantasy that so far manages to coexist with normal politics, feeding gridlock and stalemate and sometimes protest but not yet the kind of crisis anticipated by references to Weimar Germany and our Civil War.
If all the Republicans in authority are acting like the fraud charges are a joke, you can be sure that all the GOP politicians not in authority privately believe the same. But tens of millions of GOP voters really believe these nutty theories. Thus the leadership of the GOP presides over a party that is foreign to them, like Roman generals leading barbarian troops.
Perhaps Fukuyama was right after all—we are at the end of history. Both democracy and neoliberalism are deeply entrenched, and all the nonsense from the Proud Boys and the Wokesters is just performative.
Maybe there’s a sort of NIMBYism in politics, where nothing substantive can be done by either party; the special interests opposed to change are too strong. Instead, we’ll repeats all the horrors of the 20th century, the communism and fascism, but this time as mere theatre:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Let’s hope so.
PS. I was reminded of Trump and the wokesters this morning when reading Schopenauer’s discussion of knightly honor:
The truth is that conduct of this kind aims, not at earning respect, but at extorting it.
Tags:
13. December 2020 at 12:48
I know you are using NJ as an example because they have highest rate, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Murphy is a jackass. 80% of deaths occurred in 2-3 month period. They were shoving people into nursing homes. There has been few weeks of real lockdown. Only now have they tried to get serious. As the all cause seasonal deaths hit their high causing them to freak out. A million in US was never going to happen. Why do 1/3rd of excess deaths not involve Covid? Because we undercount? Or over kill? I bet the latter.
13. December 2020 at 14:30
Your points 1 and 2 are related. Professional ethicists are precisely the kind of “experts” who lack the perspective of people who are actually smart.
About Point 4, partisans on both sides play this game. Watch and see how few of the promises Biden/Harris made to the progressives are actually carried out. It’s very easy to call for bold actions when you’re not in power and don’t have to actually deal with the consequences of those actions. 2008 Obama was going to get out of Iraq. And how many far-left loonies still think 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy between Bush and the Saudis?
I think the huge increase in voting by mail in 2020 probably did cost Trump the election, but the thing is, he knew that was a strong possibility back in April, and he did nothing to oppose it until after the election. Too little, too late. And the fact that the media generally favors the Left is nothing new; every Republican has to find ways to deal with that. Reagan remains the best example of how to overcome that by coming across as a decent person and letting underlings handle the necessary attacks on your political opponents.
13. December 2020 at 14:33
Michael, Take a deep breath, and think before you type.
13. December 2020 at 15:52
I wonder why deaths are presented in “per millions.”
New Jersey has had two deaths per thousand due to Covid-19, or 2/1000ths.
Or one out of every 500 people in New Jersey has died from Covid-19 and that person very likely elderly and with co-morbidities.
It is interesting how even the very learned will accept depressing economic output for one virtuous end—fewer deaths from a mild pandemic—but not for another virtuous end.
But virtue is in the eye of the beholder, no?
13. December 2020 at 16:51
Scott,
“When issues strongly impact society, the science no longer “speaks for itself”.”
I’d rephrase that into “When issues are complex and multidisciplinary…”. It’s the real reason why “science” fails here: because most scientists have a poor grasp of how their specialized and laboratory based insights translate into the bigger picture, which is necessarily complex, interdependent with other questions, and adds values and culture to “science”.
As a sideline: Post-Trump we can all go back to trashing the overly science-credulous left 🙂
13. December 2020 at 18:21
When 5000 American citizens sign affidavits claiming they witnessed fraud is that a “joke”?
When computer scientists and mathematicians point to statistical impossibilities is that a “joke”?
When a famous attorney from Georgia, follows the money trail and reveals the secretary of state has a corporation titled “innovation LLC” that provides no service or product yet somehow earns millions a year is that a “joke”?
When Lin Wood finds that the governors brother spends most of his time in China at the “Georgia China Office”, and has a shell corporation in China that solicits CCP funds, is that a “joke”?
When signatures on ballots are not verified, and when the secretary of state refuses to verify them, is that a joke?
When Michigan has 180,000 ballots that cannot be traced to a single person is that a joke?
When judicial and executive branches unilaterally change election laws violating Article I, Section IV, of the United States Constitution is that a “joke”? If that is a “joke”, then why do we have a constitution? What is the purpose of a constitution?
When the CCP owns 75% of Dominion is that a joke?
When Dominion is designed to count votes in fractions so that elections can be rigged is that a joke?
When the machine was hacked by a Yale academic is that a joke? (the reason Texas denied them)
Courts have NOT dismissed the case on its merits. They dismissed on “Standing” and “laches”. And if Texas does not have “standing” then the question becomes “who does”. Do the legislatures have to file suit? Will Sidney Powell’s suit be heard? Will Trump campaign suit be heard? We don’t know!
But the American people deserve more.
When illegal votes and manufactured votes are counted as legal, they disenfranchise voters.
This is either a coordinated attack by corrupt liberal, inner cities, in swing districts that were not going to let Joe Biden lose, OR these secretaries of states, judicial branches and governors are inept.
Either way, if the courts refuse to hear the case on its merits then Trump ought to invoke the insurrection act, call for a provisional election and deploy the national guard and military to oversee that election. If Joe Biden is declared the winner (which he won’t), then Trump should stand down.
But a fair election is needed. 5000 Americans are not lying. Statistical analysis is not lying.
The money trail is not lying.
The only “Joke” is your partisan quackery. Or perhaps you are paid by the CCP. It is hard to tell the good guys from the traitors these days.
13. December 2020 at 19:25
The only counterpoint to this w.r.t social distancing, is that’s if the cases exploded we might have freaked out enough to force the adoption of preemptive treatment with ivermectin and/or whatever else. As it stands, it has been stuck for months right at the edge of the “tolerable zone”. We might have kicked into actual wartime levels of focus and action. But anyway, that’s neither here or there.
13. December 2020 at 20:22
mbka, Yes, that’s a better way of putting it.
13. December 2020 at 20:49
Does Yglesias have any specific examples?
His anecdote sounds nice, but when one compares different countries, his analysis of supposed specialists and generalists seems to fade into the background.
What mattered most was whether the country had a government with an ambitious uncompromising plan and as much control as possible.
Whether generalists or specialists proposed the plan must have been fairly unimportant, as long as the plan was focused on reducing new infections massively or even near to zero.
Is someone like Anders Tegnell a generalist or a specialist? Formally, he might be more of a specialist, but for that he talked a hell of a lot of holistic, generalized crap. It would have been better if he focused on his specific task and his supposed specialty: Fighting and eliminating the virus.
Or to put it another way, during an event like Chernobyl, is it best to call specialized nuclear physicists, preferably directly from the nuclear power plant, or some generalist who can muse about the political, economic and psychiatric effects of a nuclear meltdowns in general?
13. December 2020 at 23:08
That was a good Douthat column. My only quibble is that the term “dreampolitik” doesn’t have the term “kook” in it.
Nearly as profound a take as this one:
https://twitter.com/kim/status/1337990466332020739/photo/2
13. December 2020 at 23:27
Sumner voted for Biden, the most corrupt and disgusting politician on the face of this earth yet he writes articles about identity politics?
Sumner is the very definition of someone who is a victim of identity politics.
People who are NOT following identity politics, or who see identity politics for what it really is, chose to support the outsider Donald J. Trump.
And the establishment on both sides did EVERYTHING to try and stop him.
Sumner fell for it. He really believes in the mainstream nonsense. He believes that NYT and CNN, and FOX, are telling him the truth.
He still cannot get his small brain around the idea that Trumps call to drain the swamp caused 24/7 negative coverage. The swamp doesn’t want to be drained. And the swamp is both conservative and democrat.
Big Pharma is begging for Biden to reverse the most favored nations clause in desperate advertisements.
Trump was the hero of the people! He couldn’t be bought!
14. December 2020 at 00:52
BTW, Hong Kong publisher Jimmy Lai is in prison.
“Jimmy Lai appears in Hong Kong court in metal chain
Judge denies anew bail for 73-year-old media mogul, who is being charged of collusion with foreign forces to endanger China’s national security.”
—30—
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/12/hong-kongs-jimmy-lai-in-court-to-face-national-security-charges
So, Apple, Disney, BlackRock, NBA mute (although big pals with Washington establishment, especially Donks).
You know who will stand up for human rights? I don’t either.
14. December 2020 at 01:09
“And the swamp is both conservative and democrat.”
Too true.
“Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
But you won’t get ‘the Geese’ to admit it?
14. December 2020 at 01:13
“You know who will stand up for human rights? I don’t either.”
‘The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” and demanded immediate measures for the protection of his health and dignity.’ https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25249
14. December 2020 at 05:35
Is it “nutty” when military intelligence officials sign affidavits after conducting a forensic examination of dominion software?
https://www.kraken-wood.com/pdf/SCRule.pdf
Doesn’t sound “nutty” to me.
14. December 2020 at 06:31
There’s also a great response to the bioethics rant, from Chris H:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/11/a-wider-variety-of-vaccine-platforms-report#comment-334749
14. December 2020 at 07:06
” Here I’m thinking of bloggers like Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen and Razib Khan. When issues strongly impact society, the science no longer “speaks for itself”.”
The same Tyler Cowen who warned us in late March that Covid-19 was about to get much worse (45 deaths) than most think in Japan as he wrote: “I have been corresponding with a working group regarding the covid-19 situation in Japan.”
A white paper on a pandemic written by a group of English teachers and other expats. And in late April, Cowen pats himself on the back by writing an “I told you so!” post. (348 deaths then after a month.)
Covid-19 deaths in Japan in mid December: 2,700
Of course, had the Japanese not socially distanced there would have been up to 300,000 Covid-19 deaths. Oh, and masks likely saved another 200,000
Cue Dave Barry: “I’m not making this up.”
14. December 2020 at 07:30
One reason specialists can fall victim to this sort of myopia is that they might be fighting old battles. As I learned during this pandemic, aerosol scientists are not very much listened to by epidemiologists and are very frustrated about it. According to this FAQ, https://tinyurl.com/FAQ-aerosols, the reason is rooted in history. Epidemiologists were so focused on combatting the pre-germ theory misconceptions about disease being transmitted by miasmas of bad air that they were pre-disposed to dismissing the significance of aerosol transmission.
14. December 2020 at 09:12
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-county-forensics-report
So there is your forensic proof of election fraud.
Does Sumner ever get tired of being wrong?
Has he been right about anything?
I guess a Nasa engineer is now lying.
In Sumners trump derangement syndrome mind anyone who points to evidence must be wrong or lying.
14. December 2020 at 09:30
Trumpistas, Tune in for the the Electoral College vote today, as Trump comes from behind to win an astounding victory. Should be fun!
14. December 2020 at 09:45
You suggest (no more than half seriously, of course) that “we’ll repeat all the horrors of the 20th century, the communism and fascism, but this time as mere theatre.” But if it’s mere theater, it won’t be nearly so horrible! Merry Christmas!
14. December 2020 at 10:16
Is what is happening to publisher Jimmy Lai mere theater?
True, he was paraded in around court in chains, manacled like a dangerous animal, a typical authoritarian show trial.
But he is also truly behind bars.
14. December 2020 at 10:31
Scott,
Douthat is almost worth reading, but he can’t control his impulse to make excuses for the right. It’s disappointing because he could provide useful insight if he didn’t constantly feel the need to engage in both-sides nonsense. Republican leaders need to stop making excuses for bad behavior if they ever want it to stop.
And you still oppose “lockdowns” which you’ve acknowledged is meaningless term. Seems like a performative act?
BTW: you are totally right about knights. They were violent thugs. Nothing honorable about knights.
14. December 2020 at 11:07
Bob,
Yes even NASA “engineers” are full of shit.
https://amp.freep.com/amp/6538325002
14. December 2020 at 11:39
bb, how are lockdowns a meaningless term? I think ‘lockdowns’ are like racism: they’re obviously a real thing, but often (maybe more often than not) a term used to describe situations to which the term doesn’t really apply. And why wouldn’t a conservative who holds consistently conservative views (Douthat) be sympathetic to the right? I find Douthat to be incredibly measured and composed in his treatment of the left, with whom he has intense moral disagreement (e.g., abortion being a big one); so I would say that being charitable is just his style. He doesn’t want to be a Limbaugh/Krugman-type polemicist. It’s something I respect about him despite disagreeing with him about possibly more things than not. The world doesn’t need another Jennifer Rubin.
14. December 2020 at 11:47
Fukuyama gets such short shrift. He should’ve stuck to his guns and insisted Putin, Xinping, Orban, Modi, etc. are a mere temporary setback on the inexorable road to universal liberal democracy. He’d get ridiculed today, but in 50-100 years, I think he’d be hailed as a prophet. I don’t think it’s certain he’ll turn out right, but I think it’s still more likely that in 2050, China is a democracy than the US is an authoritarian dictatorship, fashionable though it may be for melodramatics to pretend otherwise.
14. December 2020 at 12:13
The US is not going back to normal or even approximately normal.
Look, here is your thought process:
a) I’m a baby boomer.
b) Things are pretty rosy in my 20s, which entrenched my world view. (Pretty close to correct. The US is experiencing its peak years during those years)
c) In those years, Dems are just like GOPs, perhaps a wee bit to the left. No crazy sh*ts got proposed and passed. Certainly no Proud Boys and BLM mobs. (This is approximately correct)
d) OMG! 2020 is a horrible year! The hard left and the far right are mobilizing in a way I have never seen in my 50+ years.
e) The US is a banana republic!(to translate White moderate suburbia speech, there is a lost of likableness in pols and the lower classes)
e) We the moderate must muster all power we can to defeat these barbarians! (you guys haven’t got much power left by any metric)
f)Phew! Looks like the house is safely gridlocked after all. Champaign anyone?
I vaguely remembered a post back when you say you are done with US politics and wish to retreat into personal lives (standard White suburbia attitude: When in doubt, there’s always 401ks, mortgage and kids to worry about). Well, the US politics will certainly not be done with you in any meaningful sense in the coming decade or so.
Your logic jumps from e) to f) because gridlock is the most superficially similar thing to you to the well functioning US polity in your 20s. It is. It in its very nature is not.
Lack of open confrontation and bad policy does not equal solidarity and tranquility. It is very important to realize the US is experiencing the former rather than the latter, although obviously if you have the latter then you would have the former. The world is going through a great stress test, and society unfortunately has to have or find ways to have some sort of latter just to survive, and no fakes of the former will suffice.
In fact, you say your view is the adamantly held belief for a significant minority of Americans. I certainly think this is true, and you guys are sincere in your believes.
Only one thing: in a successful society, with trying to be a successful DEMOCRATIC society being the hardest game among them, there isn’t supposed to be ANY ADAMANTLY held believes, only pragmatic compromises. Because you are in a DEMOCRACY, like it or not.
You are no moderate. You are just extremists of the third type. Which is exactly why US is not going back to normal.
14. December 2020 at 12:24
Mark,
Scott previously referred to lockdowns as a meaningless term. I don’t love the term, because it lacks clarity. My definition of a lockdown is very draconian, and I don’t think we’ve had one in the US. Italy had one. So why does Scott constantly feel the need to state that he is opposed to something that isn’t really on the table? It seems performative to me?
As for Douthat, he has a very hard time criticizing the Republican party without drawing parallels to the left. He compared the current campaign to discredit the 2020 election to a fringe conspiracy theory on the left about Russians hacking election machines in 2016. It’s a BS comparison. I find that he does this often. He contorted himself to avoid fully criticizing Rittenhouse. I still read much of his work, but it’s disappointing that he can’t simply criticize bad behavior on the right without throwing rocks at the left too. Also seems like a performative act.
14. December 2020 at 13:01
Even your (subconsciously chosen, no doubt) comparison to “horrors” of 1930s are very symptomatic if I really try hard. You chose the 1930s. But US was doing pretty well back then despite all the crazies going on in western Europe and Asia. The hard years for US was the roaring 20s and the Civil War. The Civil War was just 60 years before the 20s, mind you. You likely choose the 1930s because
a) WWII is the most recent period of bloodshed, it is described in greatest details in AP and college courses, which gives it some sort of singular uniqueness of which it does not have. (Recency bias)
b) More importantly, the world led by US seemed to break away from this craziness until very recently. This led to a very Whiggish interpretation of history, i.e. linear not circular, history offers no lessons, etc. In fact, all US domestic politics and national myths can be effectively argued to spring from this Whiggism. The mistake in this view is that it confuses existence of the non circular gain in technology (which is very true) for lack of any other circular components, which is unfortunately very false, and very gravely debilitatingly fatally false when those other circular component become the dominant driving force in politics, domestic or foreign.
14. December 2020 at 15:19
bb, Yes, Douthat feels a need to constantly say “both sides” when we all know where the biggest problem is today.
I keep saying I don’t favor lockdowns because I keep getting accused of favoring them.
I’ve also said that lockdowns are not the real issue. The real difference is between countries that control the epidemic and those that don’t. Lockdowns are more common in those that don’t.
FL, I’d suggest you not waste time trying to read my mind, you aren’t very good at it.
And I’m not sure you understand what the Whiggish view of history is. Compare 1880-1913 to 1914-1945.
Mark Z, I agree about Fukuyama, and would add that China and Russia weren’t democratic when he wrote the book. Many of the passages in The End of History now seem quite prophetic. He even mentioned Trump.
14. December 2020 at 15:27
Xu is right, the US wasted a good opportunity to clarify rules on US elections, starting with the right to automatically mail in a ballot. Christian List is right again (in general). When will Sumner start quoting Dr. Ben Cole and Dr. Ray Lopez? Both of these commentators have been right more than traditional media.
14. December 2020 at 16:12
“The real difference is between countries that control the epidemic and those that don’t.”
No country has controlled the virus one bit if enough entered the country. Look at all the mask wearing that shot up in spring only to have lockdowns again in Europe in the fall. Spain and Italy had over 90% wearing masks since May with France and the UK at 85%, respectively. 85% of Americans were also wearing masks in late summer before the increases in cases during fall. And we used the finest Super Duper Virus Repelling (TM) cloth masks! Even Japan only had 45 to 55% wearing masks in March and early April as cases increased the fastest but were quickly coming down in April in terms of increase per day before the national emergency was in effect. Norway didn’t use masks and its increase in cases was already decreasing prior to its lockdown.
Facts actually matter in a pandemic – or should.
14. December 2020 at 16:25
Man the Trumpian conspiracy theories are spun out faster than any reasonable person can stamp them out. What a world.
14. December 2020 at 16:35
One other thought on why generalists can outperform specialists…David Epstein’s book Range covers this topic. In a nutshell he attributes it to generalists being systems thinkers who are more willing to adjust their beliefs when confronted with a novel situation than are specialists who have invested deeply in a single approach.
14. December 2020 at 17:50
shakespearean scholar manque and resident numbskull sumner quotes from Macbeth, perhaps one of the most memorable of all of the Bard’s passages, to allude to repeating horrors. Who can see how the real horror is his misunderstanding of the Bard? “I am not who I am”??
14. December 2020 at 18:16
1. This is one of the points of the excellent book “Range”. Highly recommended.
14. December 2020 at 21:00
“When computer scientists and mathematicians point to statistical impossibilities is that a ‘joke’?”
I can’t speak to whether every single one of them is a joke, but this one is:
https://kabir-naim.medium.com/dr-shiva-ayyadurai-the-danger-of-data-charlatans-4f675ffe793c
Do you have some other “statistical impossibility” claims that you think are valid?
15. December 2020 at 01:56
I cannot wait for a civil war. It would be really fun to test my new AR-15 on the communist democrats.
And no, libtard snowflakes, that is not a threat. I’m not insane. I’m not a murderer. I’m not going to go on a lunatic rampage.
But if there was a civil war it would be very beautiful to watch.
California libtards would be destroyed in one day by the freedom loving Texan patriots.
And we all know that once the libtard commies are gone, the world will be free again.
15. December 2020 at 05:22
Scott,
“I keep saying I don’t favor lockdowns because I keep getting accused of favoring them.”
That makes more sense now. Thanks.
15. December 2020 at 06:05
Look at me look at me I read Schopenhaur.
15. December 2020 at 06:31
How about that ~4.4% fatality rate in NJ? Link below, published by Stanford professor and peer reviewed and even published by the globalist WHO, shows death rates that are not even in the same universe as 4.4%. 3mm people dead without social distancing you say? What a joke.
And how about the data dump of ~1,900 deaths on ~July 25th (search for the NJ death count graph on google)? Was the Dominion voting system counting Covid deaths in NJ? Haha.
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
15. December 2020 at 07:05
I read another interesting article and forgive me for not posting the link (I admit I am a technological neanderthal), you can google it. It basically stated that throughout the 21st century approximately 1,700 people die per day in the UK. That number really has not changed. Today, we can expect 1,700 deaths in the UK. What is interesting that for the past year or so, many of the deaths are from COVID and no one is dying from heart attacks and strokes and cancer any more. How did we get to this point? Who do we believe? Also interesting is the view of Fauci that Kary Mullis had (it’s on youtube but will probably be taken off). You know Mullis, the Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry and inventor of PCR technique.
15. December 2020 at 07:08
The case fatality rate for Covid-19 in the U.S. remains at 1.8%, for comparison the fatality rate among American servicemembers in the Vietnam War was 2.1%. The Covid deniers and minimizers continue to advocate for the wholesale slaughter of Americans.
“To me, one of the big takeaways from this pandemic has been that in a genuinely novel situation where you need to make decisions based on imperfect evidence, listening to smart generalists has been more useful than listening to credentialed subject matter experts.”
Yglesias is quite correct. Waiting for perfect information is extremely costly when delays are highly costly. Delaying guidance on masks for a month, because “the evidence isn’t clear” is extremely costly, but it’s in line with the scientific method of attempting to reject the null hypothesis. When dealing with unquantified risks, you want to leverage the lowest-cost interventions: distancing, masking, testing, tracing, and good hygiene. None of them will “solve” the risk, but each step will probably reduce the risk of transmission, if one or two of them turn out to be ineffective in retrospect, you’ll still have three or four effective interventions. But if you pair subject matter specialists’ highly conservative recommendations with Trump’s active sabotage of the test and tracing efforts, you get our current disaster.
There’s already a slew of Monday-morning quarterbacking about the vaccine delays, and I do agree that Covid-vulnerable people should be able to volunteer, but there is still a big danger when injecting a vaccine into the majority of the population. If you want another Covid-scale health disaster, go ahead and inject something into 200 million people before you’ve completed trials.
15. December 2020 at 07:22
Why did Google—all of Google—-go down on the 14th? How is that possible? If that is possible, what else is possible? We have no idea, 99%plus anyway, because we don’t understand how “Google” works. I forget the guy who said it, but technology may as well be “magic”—-our knowledge is so low. They said it was an “internal storage issue”. They may as well say “abra abra ca-dabra”
Why do I bring that up? I am making a very simple point. Most of us —-virtually all of us—-cannot “know” very much. We can know our little corner of expertise. But not even all of that.
But Scott says “without social distancing” we would have or would have had by 2/1 1 million deaths. And as he plays out the idea, he says, for example, NJ “did not follow social distancing rules in the first 2 months (march and April) ——which is why deaths were so high—-but then started following it and deaths went almost to 10 a day low.
How does he think that? What evidence is there? Who knows all cause deaths are lowest in summer and highest in winter? —-by about 1000 a day. Winter includes December.
He has his facts literally backward in NJ—-hence his cause and effect likely backward. but he thinks ND deaths have nothing to do with winter—-but instead “less social distancing”.
I write this out of boredom. Maybe my reading comprehension is shot. But Scott’s “million deaths we would have had” but did not—-also had nothing to do with Trump. Perhaps if Jorgensen were president we would have had 50k deaths.
Conspiracies can be true. If we chose the H1N1 method of counting——who knows what we would have thought.
Or, is the so called “fact” that there have been “thousands” of sworn election affidavits” the conspiracy—-or is the denial the conspiracy? I don’t know. And neither does the media—-because they do not care. Texas led a back door run at the Supreme Court on the 4 states breaking their own laws and the answer——which was my number 1 prediction (I was just guessing) was they “had no standing” . Perfect of course. Not wrong, mind you—-just no standing. Not sure how Trump had no standing—-but who cares.
We have saved a million lives somehow, we have a monstrous moron out of the WH, we have a guy with great dental work as president to be, and a one woman laugh track will soon to be president.
And, you know what? It probably does not matter—I do say probably—-but that gets worse when or if GA “wins” the 2 Senate seats.
IF they do what they threatened.
15. December 2020 at 09:32
Todd, You said:
“No country has controlled the virus one bit if enough entered the country.”
LOL. In other words, no country has controlled it that failed to control it. A few months ago there were thousands of cases in Melbourne. Now there are seven.
Steve, You said:
“I read another interesting article”
Instead of reading interesting (and fake) articles, have you thought of trying to read accurate articles?
Or perhaps Schopenhauer?
Bob, You said:
If you want another Covid-scale health disaster, go ahead and inject something into 200 million people before you’ve completed trials.”
Almost no one was calling for that, they were calling for challenge studies.
Michael, You said:
“And as he plays out the idea, he says, for example, NJ “did not follow social distancing rules in the first 2 months (march and April) ——which is why deaths were so high—-but then started following it and deaths went almost to 10 a day low.”
No, the lack of social distancing was in February and March. By late March even New Jersey was social distancing.
You said:
“I write this out of boredom. Maybe my reading comprehension is shot. But Scott’s “million deaths we would have had” but did not—-also had nothing to do with Trump. Perhaps if Jorgensen were president we would have had 50k deaths.
Conspiracies can be true.”
Do you ever go back over and look at what you’ve written?
15. December 2020 at 14:01
“LOL. In other words, no country has controlled it that failed to control it. A few months ago there were thousands of cases in Melbourne. Now there are seven.”
Scott, you are not getting this after almost a year. In Australia, there were only *five* cases on June 12. That is essentially complete eradication except, it wasn’t as by the end of July there were 400 cases a day.
By mid-July, there were 110 Covid-19 deaths in July, and increase of just 17 since the end of April. From mid July to the end of August, there were almost 800 more deaths. That is controlling the virus?
Look at other countries around the world. I don’t understand the inability to realize that government policies have nothing to do with the spread once the virus is already in the country. Granted, Sweden didn’t stop visitors from entering care homes early enough and Cuomo and the NJ and PA had the brainy policy of *ordering* Covid-19 patients into nursing homes but in general not much else can be done.
Does everyone think that the U.S. has had the 9th worst policies and that Sweden has the 24th worst? Have Cambodia and Laos had the best responses since no Covid-19 deaths there? Is the world going to adopt the Cambodian health care system soon? Maybe Laos’ is better so maybe will all have Laotian health care by 2025.
15. December 2020 at 14:56
Scott,
Where are you getting your state ranking of deaths/Million? I see MA,NJ and NY at 28,31, and 41, respectively. That’s from covidtracking.com.
The states that were hardest hit early on are, in fact, doing much better now than the states who missed the first wave.
Another enormous factor to consider is seasonality: the southern hemisphere was hit in their winter, and now it’s the North’s turn again. Melbourne’s cases were going to drop near zero with or without their lockdown (but I’m not arguing that lockdowns do nothing, just saying that seasonality does even more).
15. December 2020 at 15:17
@Todd Kreider
You said
I don’t think you can explain China without attributing credit to their government policies. I’m not saying that we could have had a Chinese style lockdown here in the states, but it’s clear the Chinese government put a smackdown on the corona virus after Wuhan.
That said, to me the great missed opportunity in the US has not been a shortage of lockdowns, but a lack of emphasis on filtration, ventilation and self test kits. Masks are, of course, important, but you could provide a lot more safety on top of that for indoor gatherings for not that much cost. HEPA air filters do a good job of filtering the virus and a decent one can be made for $50. CO2 meters can give a good sense of identifying when human exhalation is accumulating in a room. For less than $200 you could provide reasonable safety to a classroom, a restaurant, an office or a home for a holiday gathering. The formulas are clear for reasonable safety levels. We could get away from the arbitrariness about the current lockdown rules.
15. December 2020 at 17:23
Todd, You said:
“I don’t understand the inability to realize that government policies have nothing to do with the spread once the virus is already in the country.”
Sure, if Melbourne had taken the laissez faire approach of the Dakotas it would have all magically gone away.
JJ, Here’s my source:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Yes, there’s seasonality, but even in the summer low point the US was experiencing 500 deaths a day. Australia’s had one death in the past 6 weeks.
15. December 2020 at 17:26
I still miss examples where generalists really helped or even saved us. I can think of one example where it really is close to 100% true: Masks.
Are there any more examples?
The heroes of the pandemic so far are this immigrant couple from Germany. I wouldn’t say that they are generalists, but rather quite specialized researchers.
Every good specialist needs good generalists of course, who then take care of the general things, but every generalist also needs his specialists. A separation seems difficult to me.
Bill Gates may be another generalist. We heard a lot about him in the beginning of the pandemic, but how big was his impact really? For example, what happened to all the vaccine factories he wanted to build? And was this really the deciding step? He never made any mistakes, he got it right from the beginning, better than the specialists? I kind of doubt it.
And now that the solutions are actually being finalized, it has become rather quiet around him. I could be wrong but my impression so far is that all this fuss about Bill Gates was much ado about close to nothing. Take him out of the equation and close to nothing changes.
Carl,
Todd can explain everything by attributing credit to his miracle food supplements.
15. December 2020 at 17:53
I’ve been both amused and bemused at the fundamentally anti-science views that Scott and Mr. List have had this entire time. For them magical thinking consistently trumps scientific thinking. “Masks! Our savior!” despite study after study and obvious recent evidence shows no effectiveness. Still, Scott and Mr. List wear a mask around their necks as millions wear crosses.
Scott will always look at tiny places like North Dakota in a small time period to generalize to 7 billion people.
And Mr. List refuses to acknowledge that NR (Niagen) has reduced sickness from Covid 19 by 30% in a 100 person trial that has expanded now to 300 people.
The problem I have with Scott and the pandemic and Mr. List’s comments on NR (saying I believe in miracle food supplements) is that they have the reasoning of 11 year olds in these areas. Maybe an adult discussion is coming in 2021. Hope springs Eternal.
15. December 2020 at 18:50
@Carl
There is no reason to believe anything the Chinese government has said or reported about Covid-19. It’s unfortunate, but the world we live in.
15. December 2020 at 19:05
@Christian List
You make a fair point about the vaccine specialists who will, in the end, have made by far the biggest contribution to ending the pandemic. Point taken.
15. December 2020 at 20:07
jj,
You are using reason where Scott is using religion. Good luck. It hasn’t worked well in the past.
15. December 2020 at 20:23
Covid Communist Tyranny in full force.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/accomplished-pharma-prof-thrown-in-psych-hospital-after-questioning-official-covid-narrative
French Professor arrested and placed into Psychiatrics hospital for speaking out against draconian, totalitarian laws.
Communists, and their Gulag death camps on the door steps of Europe and America.
Buy weapons. Stock up. Prepare for the end times folks. Evil is coming.
15. December 2020 at 21:12
Todd, Your words make no sense and people have tried to explain this to you in nice ways. You keep making claims and not giving citations – your most recent one about masks – if there are all these studies then show them – I’ve seen plenty that show the opposite but at least then we can have something meaningful to talk about. You asked Scott to take logic 101 (I’ve taken graduate level logic which is basically irrelevant since it’s all math anyway) and yet you don’t try to examine your own views which is the most basic starting point of arguing in good faith.
To all the Trump bots – it’s almost as if you are speaking a foreign language – eg janice’s post – what does any of that mean? I am as opposed to communism as the next person but these are just random words strung together.
Scott, I know this is your blog and you can do whatever you want and have a much wiser and more detached view of this but I think some of the bot types and violent threats should be blocked.
15. December 2020 at 21:30
Todd, Also, you don’t need to believe particularly much of what China has said to establish that they were able to suppress the virus. Are you arguing that they never had a large outbreak or that it’s still out of control there? There’s a lot about the details of the early outbreak that we don’t know, but if you think that they didn’t have a large outbreak and several small ones that they controlled via harsh lockdowns we are going to have to hear more details.
16. December 2020 at 07:10
@Scott
I do read what I write. I really should follow Lincoln’s pithy comment about shorter is better. I will do so. But——1) I cannot believe you think our social distancing practices prevented 1 million deaths (or whatever the net number is). And using NJ as an example is truly counter factual. But the former point is absurd.
I bring up Trump for obvious parody reasons. I assume you did not believe —-as Biden implied (or accused) that Trump caused all deaths. Pence was a big social distancing messenger (plus all the other proper behaviors).
I have no idea if you think Trump rallies made the “million saved” lower. Or whether keeping grocery stores opened (instead of forced deliveries) would have prevented deaths.
But it is so off the wall——-and unknowable—-I find it mockworthy to the extreme.
16. December 2020 at 09:32
Anonymous wrote: “todd, Your words make no sense and people have tried to explain this to you in nice ways.”
Yes, being told I have some neurosis was quite nice. Anyone who has studied logic at the graduate level must have enough neurons firing correctly to look up the 6,000 person Danish mask study that showed no benefit of even wearing highest quality N-98 masks, not the more porous cloth masks almost everyone puts around their faces.
Here is the meta study that looked at all ten randomized controlled studies on the effectiveness of masks, published this past May with a nice CDC logo at the top:
“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” (four were hand washing studies, ten were mask studies)
“In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2).”
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Oh, OK, here is the 6,000 person randomized controlled mask study:
“The primary outcome occurred in 42 participants (1.8%) in the mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) ”
[So the small difference in groups was not statistically significant.]
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
None of this matters since it is like showing a creationist yet another dinosaur fossil.
16. December 2020 at 10:19
Todd, I’m sorry but I don’t know if you’ve looked around but you are the creationist in this analogy – quite literally. You may happen to be right but you are arguing with expert consensus on several only vaguely related issues (mask effectiveness, social distance effectiveness, morbidity, etc.) so the burden of proof is on you and yet you are calling everyone on the other side names, which finally got me annoyed too.
I appreciate the sources – I admit I only spent five minutes evaluating them since I’ve read about the mask topic a while ago and don’t really care to spend more time on it, but it seems to have been enough.
For the article hosted on the CDC website: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/31/facebook-posts/no-cdc-who-study-does-not-prove-masks-do-not-preve/
“ Rasmussen reiterated that “this was a systematic review of other published studies and it tells us much of what we already know: there’s not a good evidence base for masks outside of a healthcare setting, but there are still many knowledge gaps, especially regarding mechanisms of transmission.”
Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman said the study reflects the understanding of masks in the early phase of the pandemic, but scientific opinion has shifted because of several important papers published since then.
“The kicker is,” he added, “just weeks later, a group with the same senior author, plus some coronavirus specialists, produced a paper demonstrating that masks are indeed highly effective in stopping infected people from releasing airborne viruses.”
The post claims a CDC study proved that masks do not prevent COVID-19. But it wasn’t a CDC study, and it didn’t “prove” that masks were ineffective. Scientists are still studying masks and the prevention of COVID-19.”
For the Danish study, there’s a lot there, but here is one quote: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-using-an-rct-to-assess-mask-use-as-a-public-health-measure-to-help-control-sars-cov-2-spread-danmask-19/
“Also, given the relatively low (<50% compliance), a possible 50% protective effect seems pretty good in this otherwise poorly compliant Danish population. So this would likely be much higher – perhaps 70-90% in a much more compliant Southeast/East Asian population.“
But let’s take a step back on the Danish study – it proves too much and is automatically suspect because of it. How do you explain that they show no effect of N98 (99?) masks. The only way that makes sense is if the study is bad or not applicable – we don’t even need to read it to establish that.
16. December 2020 at 10:26
Also, unrelated to my last post, for those of us who are vaguely Libertarian inclined and believe the pandemic is real TC had a great post today: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/12/the-ideological-shift-of-the-libertarian-movement-on-pandemics.html
16. December 2020 at 10:39
What in the world are you talking about? I am not arguing against expert consensus. The entire Western world’s health organizations including the WHO and the CDC were against mask wearing since ineffective as Dr. Fauci explained to Americans in February: masks are too porous to have any real protection. Scientists in the UK, Sweden, Germany, Australia and other countries have continued to recommend against wearing masks, which politicians ignore.
You quoted Tang, a virologist, not an epidemiologist and that quote makes no sense. Nowhere is it argued that masks slow transmission by 50%. And since May, mask wearing has been almost as common in the West as in Asia with Spain and Italy at over 90% compared to Japan at around 80% since early May, yet only 50% in late March and early April when cases were not shooting up at all.
I provide links and you breeze through them in five minutes. What a scholar.
Your comments on the Danish study are similar to again, a creationist – the Bible thumping type. You don’t like the conclusions so to you the study isn’t worth reading,.
16. December 2020 at 11:09
Todd, I’m done wasting my time.
Your first paragraph ignores one of the biggest stories of 2020 and one of the greatest failings of early pandemic messaging: The turnaround on masks. The WHO, CDC, and Fauci claimed masks were useful for healthcare workers but not for the general public. That turned out to be bad messaging and further studies showed the effectiveness of masks. I don’t think anyone can ignore those developments in good faith.
I can post 10 studies too, but again, I evaluated them quickly and there is little there – your Danish study makes no sense until you explain why is shows that N99 masks don’t work. It’s like an HIV study showing that lack of sexual intercourse has no impact on transmission. The first study has problems which I pointed out and then the author published a follow up that contradicts it.
Discussions are only interesting when both parties are arguing in good faith. This has been one of silliest arguments I have ever participated in.
16. December 2020 at 11:32
Also, again, speaking of the Danish study, that was just one quote from my link. Here’s a few more:
“DANMASK-19 was an unblinded RCT of surgical mask wearing in 6000 people, to test whether masks protect the wearer (the authors did not look at the more important question of source control – whether masks protect other people). Notably, the authors themselves comment: ‘The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.’ It is very troubling, therefore, that the press and some policymakers are already interpreting the study as meaning that mask mandates should be abandoned. The study does not support that conclusion.
“What the authors acknowledge is that the study doesn’t show if wearing facemasks protected others from infection by the wearers, if the wearers had coronavirus without realising it. Other studies have shown that facemasks can prevent transmission from mask wearers to others, which is why most countries have moved to policies to encourage mask wearing. Mass public facemask wearing will only work properly at preventing the spread of the disease if there is near universal compliance.
Overall evaluations from experts who spent time on it do vary but either way the study only talks about personal protection, not community transmission (as the authors state).
And since you claim that you are not arguing against expert consensus (a laughable claim), here’s a few quotes for that as well, including from the actual CDC: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/11/933903848/wear-masks-to-protect-yourself-from-the-coronavirus-not-only-others-cdc-stresses
In a report updated Tuesday, the CDC says that is still the primary intention of wearing masks. But it also cites growing evidence that even cloth masks can also reduce the amount of infectious droplets inhaled by the wearer.
16. December 2020 at 12:39
1. Philip E. Tetlock wrote a book that made this point and supported it with evidence, Expert Political Judgment. The usual metaphor is Isaiah Berlin’s line about the hedgehog v. the fox.
Well worth reading. https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp/0691175977
16. December 2020 at 12:43
Scott, worldometers gives you the cumulative DPM per state, but you need a time series to distinguish between spring and fall death rates.
Here it is:
https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/deaths-per-million-by-state
The 7 states hit hardest in spring (before July 1) are doing relatively well now:
NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, DC, LA
The 7 states doing the worst now (from Oct 1) had very few deaths in spring:
ND, SD, IA, MT, AR, WI, NM
The 7 states hit hardest in the summer (July 1 – Oct 1) are all southern states:
MS, AZ, SC, FL, LA, TX, GA
16. December 2020 at 14:05
@Todd Kreider
I think much of the confusion about masks comes from the fact that masks are more effective against coronaviruses than influenza viruses as illustrated in this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
When people reference studies showing the inefficacy of masks they are often referring to influenza studies.
16. December 2020 at 16:52
I feel you guys. I know enough people who tried to have a fair and serious discussion with the epic Toddmeister about masks. It started about 9 months ago and it hasn’t stopped since. The awakening comes relatively quickly, no worries.
Some people need less time, some need more time until they realize that the Nile is more likely to flow backwards and that Trump is more likely to humbly admit a mistake than the vague possibility that the Toddmeister is admitting anything.
😂
16. December 2020 at 17:14
Christian, Loving the imagery here 🙂
16. December 2020 at 18:37
I hate to bring up monetary policy on a monetary policy blog, but…the Fed just issued a policy statement.
Here is one reaction, from Commerzbank:
“The Federal Reserve did not adopt any new measures at its meeting today. However, it now pledges to maintain bond purchases until there is ‘substantial progress’ toward meeting its goals. Monetary policy is likely to remain ultra-expansionary for a long time.”
—30—
I bring this up as the quote above is the type of language monetary-policy types have used for years to describe the Bank of Japan (though not the Swiss National Bank, which has an even larger QE program, in relation to GDP).
So, now the Fed is “ultra-expansionary.”
Well, we will see. Maybe we get some inflation, maybe not. What inflation US does have, as measured, is largely linked to the effects of property zoning. Japan is in deflation.
(But remember! The Swiss National Bank is not “ultra-expansionary,” despite having in the past few years printed and spent enough francs to build a balance sheet larger than its GDP).
16. December 2020 at 20:21
Christian, It’s not a question of who was effective, it’s a question of who was right. Read the Yglesias quote again. Reading Alex Tabarrok was 100 times more informative on policy questions than reading a statement by a government official or a scientist.
Anonymous, I do occasionally ban people for making violent threats. Perhaps I miss some, as I don’t read all the comments.
Todd, No, the Danish study did not show that masks are not effective, indeed it didn’t even test the effectiveness of masks.
I don’t know of anyone who’s been so consistently wrong about everything from day one.
JJ, I should have said those states “currently have the highest CUMULATIVE death rates”
16. December 2020 at 20:57
Personally Tyler Cowen’s interview of Breannan is my favorite MR post ever.
16. December 2020 at 21:00
I say this appropo of this topic
https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1339270846255427584
17. December 2020 at 06:45
“Todd, No, the Danish study did not show that masks are not effective, indeed it didn’t even test the effectiveness of masks.
I don’t know of anyone who’s been so consistently wrong about everything from day one.”
This is the same Scott who doesn’t know what a scientific study is. This is also the same Scott who was quite sure in late March that no more than 30,000 Americans would die from Covid-19.
The 6,000 randomized mask trial showed that there was no evidence that masks slow down the transmission of coronavirus which is obvious to anyone who actually reads the results. Of course, there is also the 2015 Australian/Vietnam mask study in hospitals that shows cloth masks let 97% of a virus through whereas surgical masks allowed about 50% through. The same study concluded that there was no evidence that surgical masks led to less transmission of viruses. CoronaVIRUS happens to be a virus. (Carl, the differences with influenza aren’t that great and why the Danish study tested transmission of coronavirus only to get a null result.)
One can even site the meta study from this year that concluded:
“In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” But mask religion trumps science.
Anonymous: “I can post 10 studies too,”
I notice that you never do. What a surprise. Can you link to a study that shows N98 masks – that is what an author of the author stated and likely meant N95 masks but the Annals of Internal Medicine site is down now so can’t check. You somehow think people wearing N95 or N99 guarantees essentially no transmission in public??
17. December 2020 at 07:59
Scott,
Bitcoin just surpassed $23,000.
Time for another bubble post.
Regards
17. December 2020 at 09:20
@Todd Kreider
You said:
.
I read the study you referenced in the Annals of Internal Medicine. And, I agree that it does not conclude that there is a significant advantage for face mask wearing for the wearer. Fair enough. There are many natural experiments as well as some controlled experiments that I could link to that find otherwise. And, if you read the study I already referenced, you’re left with having to explain how masks reduce the amount of virus transmitted by the wearers without having any effect on community transmission of the disease. That’s difficult to explain.
17. December 2020 at 09:58
Todd,
“The 6,000 randomized mask trial showed that there was no evidence that masks slow down the transmission of coronavirus which is obvious to anyone who actually reads the results.”
No, it’s the opposite. No scientific training is necessary. It’s very clear from following the conversation that you have no interest in actually examining the evidence – you haven’t even read the Abstract of the study you keep citing as proof.
I took a few minutes to read the beginning of the Danish study – it’s a quick read and it really doesn’t claim any of the things you think it does. It specifically studies whether individuals are protected, not whether it helps prevent spread, and it does so by recommending mask wearing and handing them out to the treatment group.
We will not come to an agreement on masks or the virus, but if you do care about truth seeking like you say you should take a moment and reflect on what’s happening here. Many people have pointed out that your approach and method are off and in this most recent example your portrayal of this paper is so far from reality that I think it warrants deeper examination.
Now I am quite sure that you know all this and that you enjoy this game, but in the unlikely case that you are not, believe me that this is not how academics and experts in any field, whether it be science, economics, investing, etc. have discussions. It’s very obvious to anyone who has participated in real discussions that you are not arguing in good faith and you are not fooling anyone.
17. December 2020 at 10:45
Todd, You said:
“The 6,000 randomized mask trial showed that there was no evidence that masks slow down the transmission of coronavirus which is obvious to anyone who actually reads the results.”
No, it doesn’t.
Aleksander, Yes, and NASDAQ is at 12,700!
17. December 2020 at 11:02
odd, You said:
“The 6,000 randomized mask trial showed that there was no evidence that masks slow down the transmission of coronavirus which is obvious to anyone who actually reads the results.”
No, it doesn’t.
———–
OK Scott, what do you think that null study showed if not a null result?
Anonymous wrote:
“Many people have pointed out that your approach and method are off and in this most recent example your portrayal of this paper is so far from reality that I think it warrants deeper examination.”
I have a physics degree and the “many people” you refer to here do not have a science degree. Oh, and I get lectured that I need to learn the “scientific method” even though as Feynman pointed out over 60 years ago there really isn’t such a thing.
The problem is in all of your posts to me, you are like Scott in that you don’t actually say anything. Just some variation of “No it doesn’t”.
Carl wrote: “There are many natural experiments as well as some controlled experiments that I could link to that find otherwise.”
But, you won’t actually link to any of them. Shocked again!
There have been no randomly controlled mask trials out of the 11 conducted that shows masks notably reduce the spread of viruses and the 2015 study shows that cloth masks may spread infections more than wearing nothing because bacteria can form on dirty masks.
17. December 2020 at 11:19
Todd, how do you know what kind of degree those people have? And did your degree require reading the Abstract of papers? You can’t even admit that the paper you cited multiple times doesn’t say what you said it does – we can all read it. There’s no point in any of us posting more studies if you won’t even accurately represent the one you yourself posted.
17. December 2020 at 11:31
Also while there is no point continuing this discussion until you admit that earlier point, here is an overview from the CDC on the effectiveness of masks to show that that your claim that you are not arguing against expert consensus is incorrect:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
Of course, literally nobody, whether they agree or disagree on the effectiveness of masks could reasonably deny what the current expert consensus on the issue is.
17. December 2020 at 14:56
@Todd Kreider
Anonymous just linked to a CDC brief that references 12 natural experiments showing mask efficacy. I could add more links to yet more studies but I don’t much see the point after you didn’t show any interest in reviewing the last study I linked.
17. December 2020 at 15:39
Scott,
Perhaps what Tabarrok wrote and said is impressive to a layperson, I don’t know. I haven’t read anything from him in months that was in any way new or impressive.
Your call regarding the masks at the very beginning of the pandemic was kind of impressive. Good instinct. Okay, he might have said this too, but it was from you that I first heard it. I think he jumped on the bandwagon. But other than that? He certainly said wrong things, too. Like everybody else.
He was not “right” more often, not to mention that he hardly made any statements that can be assessed as “right” or “wrong”.
He often gave suggestions as to which many actions could and should be undertaken, this is not a category of “right” or “wrong”, there’s no reality test.
I also think that the real experts knew very well what was coming.
I have read an old document from the German parliament, where the parliament asked to draft disaster scenarios and how to prepare for them. It was from 2012 or so. The experts gave about four scenarios that the German parliament should fund and prepare for.
One scenario gives you goose bumps today, it’s about a “pandemic caused by a corona virus originating from China”. – You can’t make this stuff up, this is actually really sick forecasting power.
This forecast paper is really so grotesquely good, it takes your breath away. It also has all the actions in it that one has to do. This is not rocket science. The problem was politics and funding. Politicians don’t like to pay for precautions like that, probably for good reasons, it is not rewarded by the voter, one does not see the effort, until the pandemic really strikes.
@Carl and Anonymous
You killed the Toddmeister for now, but don’t worry he will raise from the dead soon, without a single scratch on his body or doubt in his mind.
17. December 2020 at 17:27
Carl,
Why didn’t the CDC promote their “natural experiments” in 2019 when they and the WHO restated over the years that masks are not advice because they are not effective in preventing transition of viruses, ten times smaller than bacteria?
Scientific studies are randomized controlled trials (RTC). You should look that up. Anonymous and Scott are beyond hope.
Anonymous wrote: “Todd, how do you know what kind of degree those people have?”
I didn’t say I knew what degrees the have apart from Scott who had econ degrees and no science background like Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarock. Come on man! (A Bidenism) Scott is a proud Luddite!
17. December 2020 at 17:28
I meant masks “are not advisable” (not advice)
17. December 2020 at 17:48
(Good) RCTs are Scientific Studies.
Not all Scientific Studies are RCTs.
https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2019/02/breakthrough-research-reveals-parachutes-dont-prevent-death-when-jumping-from-a-plane/
17. December 2020 at 19:40
@Todd Kreider
I don’t know why the CDC didn’t do that in 2019. I know from following a number of aerosol physicists since this pandemic began that they have been frustrated with epidemiologists at the CDC and the WHO for a long time because of the epidemiologists’ overemphasis of droplets and fomites as mechanisms of virus transmission and their deemphasis of aerosols. I also know that many of the mask studies people cite involve influenza viruses not coronaviruses and the two behave differently at the level of fine-grained aerosols.