Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
Agree. We can debate what degree of lockdown was appropriate in the spring of 2020, but by 2022, the answer is pretty obvious: locking everything down even now that everyone's vaccinated and we've switched to dominant strain that's weaker than a cold is not a good economic cost-benefit calculation at all.
|
It's interesting now to look back at the various scientists who commented and how they were treated. Lots of people believe we "follow the science".
The ones who did some early serology studies were completely trashed publicly even though their estimates looked pretty good in the long run and we eventually sort of had to accept their findings. It was obvious even in March 2020 that covid was not killing 3-5% of people for example and probably not even 1% of infections in many populations. One of the guys who got trashed was a star of scientific meta-analysis, maybe one of the most cited people in the world.
There was another guy (Michael Levitt, biophysicist with Nobel prize) who made basic observations (stuff like "derivative is going down, spread is not going to take off in the way you guys say") and he got trashed.
The people arguing for focused protection of the most vulnerable (Great Barrington) got smeared too. Since that time an email leaked from the NIH director that asked for a "take-down" of this group.
I don't think anybody had any silver-bullet solutions but if we had been able to have an open and honest conversation that was less fear driven it might have gone better IMO. This was a total fail to deploy the resources we have effectively due to politics. One big political problem is that big pharma basically "saving us" does not fit into the worldview of a lot of people, so they have to emphasize other things. As for me, I don't care if my altar that I pray to has an Anthony Fauci or Theresa Tam doll or a Pfizer logo.
