LaoDan wrote:Michael wrote:You think the Chinese quarantines were successful? Based on what, how many people were starved to death while welded into their apartments?
I have not seen any information about Chinese starvation while being confined in their apartments. Could you supply links to this information (or is this just hyperbole)?
On earlier topics:
The early recommendations, when masks were not recommended, were probably formulated on the idea that, based on transmission information from other viral strains, it was likely that only symptomatic individuals would be likely to spread the virus (and wearing masks when not actually sick could spur panic, drain resources from those who really needed them like healthcare workers or high risk individuals, etc.). But recommendations changed when evidence indicated that there was a possibility of significant asymptomatic community spread for the COVID virus.
But the idea that science should be ignored, because the initial recommendations were later changed (or that nobody REALLY knows, or that there is no definitive PROOF...), appears to just be attempts to find “loopholes” that will allow people to go against the current recommendations. I think that that would be unwise. If one is really being objective, then they should try to understand the REASONS for changes in the scientific study conclusions and recommendations. Evaluation of science should not be just about picking which conclusions support one’s desires while ignoring or attempting to discredit science itself, or at least those conclusions that do not support one’s desires. I doubt that those who criticize science really understand the scientific method.
We do not have sufficient data to make definitive conclusions, and the recommendations must therefore change when new data and analyses become available. This, as well as political considerations, financial concerns, and other factors that are not directly health related, contributes to the wide variety of approaches different leaders take to address the pandemic.
I think that we should rely on scientists during a health crisis, rather than on political desires. Science itself is not just justifying what one desires (there are both Republican and Democratic scientists in the USA, and it is typically difficult to know which is which just through reading their studies). Scientists expect there to be challenges to their studies and conclusions, and they typically welcome new results that change the understanding of the subject under investigation. Unfortunately, the need for speedy information on this potentially dangerous, and rapidly spreading, pandemic has lead to rapid dissemination of preliminary conclusions that often have not gone through rigorous peer review for rigor or validity or worthiness...(all of which take time), therefore leading to less reliable information that needs to be reevaluated once more data is collected and analyzed.
We should do as much as we can to obtain additional data so that policies are based on more and more reliable information. That is why many scientists state that we do not really know many things at this time. We need more testing to obtain more reliable data. Until we have a better idea of how this novel virus behaves, one should be cautious (though to what degree is, of course, debatable).
Personally, I think that LIFE is a prerequisite for “liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and that therefore life should take precedence, during this health pandemic, over things like “freedom” (especially when freedoms endanger other peoples’ lives), making money, etc.
The obvious rationality of this response is refreshing.
Sure... 