Kerry: Did Shoddy Science Shut Down America?

https://www.kerrydougherty.com/allposts/2020/4/9/did-shoddy-science-shut-down-america

I wouldn’t go as far as Dougherty does in her title to say that the science was shoddy. Instead, I would emphasize that too many people misunderstood the science, or misrepresented it for all the usual reasons. As a result, we are still dealing with Chicken Little thinking in too much of our public discourse.

The science says that herd immunity is the only way to stop the pandemic. I was very pleased, therefore, to hear the president announce yesterday that he is forming a new task force to come up with ways to re-open the economy. The move makes perfect sense, once you conceive that there are practical ways to manage the development of the herd immunity we need.

PJM: BREAKING: FBI Knew Before Mueller Probe That Hillary’s Steele Dossier Was Russian Disinformation

https://pjmedia.com/trending/breaking-fbi-knew-before-mueller-probe-that-hillarys-steele-dossier-was-russian-disinformation/

I expect we’ll be hearing more about this, because statutory violations are likely at play. Of particular interest: The fantasy that Trump and/or his campaign subordinates were Russian assets is becoming increasing difficult to sustain. Cognitive dissonance.

Models are NOT Meant to be Accurate

Scott Adams made a point in yesterday’s video that I’d like to share. You can watch the video here, but the point he made is simple enough to convey in a few words: Models (like the IHME model CDC is using to forecast the coronavirus in America) are NOT meant to be accurate, they are meant to useful — typically in a way to convince others to take some action or another.

Continue reading “Models are NOT Meant to be Accurate”

YouTube: Perspectives on the Pandemic | Professor Knut Wittkowski

As sure as I post this, someone will accuse me of some thought crime or another. Nevertheless, I find the Dr.’s observations both intriguing and consistent with other things we are hearing — the failure of the IHME data model we learned about last weekend, for example.

The main idea in the video is the suggestion that “flattening the curve” also broadens it. This seems like pure common sense to me, although I had never thought about it. More than that — if true — it would mean that our public policy on Covid-19 should be much more nuanced than it is.

In particular, serological testing should be given a much higher priority than it currently enjoys. I’d like to see Dr.s Fauci and Birx report the number of serological tests each day in the daily briefing and explain the results. Without this data, the public can’t know the true status of the disease and, frankly, is suceptible to being mislead by public health officials and media who promote policies that are scientifically questionable.

AT: A better way to handle the coronavirus?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/a_better_way_to_handle_the_coronavirus.html

The writer makes the useful point that we must unwind from our response to Covid-19 soon, especially our reliance on social distancing. Public immunity testing is increasingly discussed as a viable approach.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind having to pass a test prior to entering a restaurant, workplace or hotel, but I suspect that testing at that level may not become necessary as strong therapeutic treatments (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) become more widespread. I would, however, oppose government issue of “immunity cards.”

It occurs to me, too, that immunity to SARS-Cov-2, may be more common that we have imagined. I’d be interested to hear a scientific opinion on levels of immunity that would be sufficient to allow the relaxation of social distancing guidelines.