COVID19

[nirvana]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

I think a debate can be had as there will be people where the virus shifted the death by a few days/ weeks and it certainly has relevance when comparing death rates in different countries.

The article shows that this debate is at the margins though (from a UK perspective) as most people whose death is attributed to the virus will have their lives foreshortened to a degree that suggests the co-morbidity factor can be ignored

Did you see the ‘displaced mortality’ thing I linked? I would have thought the better comparisons would be all cause mortality and then an adjustment/weighting for already known key factors, such as age/morbidity/ethnicity.

Yes. Think that would be the right way to look at it. one day we'll know a lot about this

but in the meantime, people are still right to ask why:

We have a policy on tests based on the fact that we don’t have enough tests or people to administer them, even just for key workers or prisoners, both sets of people where the R0 is almost certainly greater than 1
We have a policy on surveillance testing based on not having enough tests or people to administer them
We have a policy on contact tracing, based on the fact that we don’t have enough people to carry it out (test, trace, isolate). 300 people in the country apparently trained for this.
We have a policy on international arrivals based on the fact that we don’t have testing or resource available to ensure infected people self isolate
We have policy on PPE based on not having adequate PPE. PHE downgrading their advice on ‘safe’ PPE based only on availability of previously ‘safe’ PPE, two changes since March 6 driven only by lack of stuff. Seems to be over 100 healthcare workers have died now.
We have a policy on face masks, for non medical but at risk people, driven only by the fact that we don’t have any face masks.

It’s lack of resources not ‘science’, which is leading our response.

.

Not sure what that has to do with my contribution but fwiw I agree people should ask whatever they want. Lack of resources dictated our response is not really a revelation though is it, the whole premise has been if too many people get it the NHS will be overwhelmed. That doesn't surprise me or bother me as much as it seems to bother other people.

Hopefully we're doing the max we can, now, in some of those areas to ensure as many restrictions as possible are lifted as soon as possible. At the moment its barely possible to have a conversation about the future due in part to some of the points you make but also because the level of risk aversion we've instilled in people and politicians will take a while to unwind.

[Marky147]

Seen worse, lol.

Go on Rocket!

Always thought you were a positive and supportive person. Go Elton, you gave it everything

Haha, it's definitely not great, but I'm surprised he can even plot up at the piano after 30 years on the charlie.

Would have been worse if he was lip-syncing in the back garden

[kukushkin88]

Next time the next dickhead tells you that they had pre-existing conditions so they would have died soon anyway, you can answer them a bit more politely.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/covid-19-actuaries-response-group_covid-19-arg-death-row-bulletin-activity-6653226206785347584-SQnY

In summary, even people with a raft of interacting pre-existing conditions should not be expecting to die anytime soon, and were typically more than 5 years from death (even amongst the elderly).

It's a really interesting subject this and no doubt the debate over died with or died of is a bit academic except when trying to compare different countries reported Covid death rates and trying to link that to the  impact of the multi varied approaches that countries have taken

It think that the point is that there isn’t a debate to be had between ‘died of’ or ‘died with’. Maybe Doobs can clarify?

I think a debate can be had as there will be people where the virus shifted the death by a few days/ weeks and it certainly has relevance when comparing death rates in different countries.

The article shows that this debate is at the margins though (from a UK perspective) as most people whose death is attributed to the virus will have their lives foreshortened to a degree that suggests the co-morbidity factor can be ignored

Did you see the ‘displaced mortality’ thing I linked? I would have thought the better comparisons would be all cause mortality and then an adjustment/weighting for already known key factors, such as age/morbidity/ethnicity.

Yes. Think that would be the right way to look at it. one day we'll know a lot about this

but in the meantime, people are still right to ask why:

We have a policy on tests based on the fact that we don’t have enough tests or people to administer them, even just for key workers or prisoners, both sets of people where the R0 is almost certainly greater than 1
We have a policy on surveillance testing based on not having enough tests or people to administer them
We have a policy on contact tracing, based on the fact that we don’t have enough people to carry it out (test, trace, isolate). 300 people in the country apparently trained for this.
We have a policy on international arrivals based on the fact that we don’t have testing or resource available to ensure infected people self isolate
We have policy on PPE based on not having adequate PPE. PHE downgrading their advice on ‘safe’ PPE based only on availability of previously ‘safe’ PPE, two changes since March 6 driven only by lack of stuff. Seems to be over 100 healthcare workers have died now.
We have a policy on face masks, for non medical but at risk people, driven only by the fact that we don’t have any face masks.

It’s lack of resources not ‘science’, which is leading our response.

.

Not sure what that has to do with my contribution but fwiw I agree people should ask whatever they want. Lack of resources dictated our response is not really a revelation though is it, the whole premise has been if too many people get it the NHS will be overwhelmed. That doesn't surprise me or bother me as much as it seems to bother other people.

Hopefully we're doing the max we can, now, in some of those areas to ensure as many restrictions as possible are lifted as soon as possible. At the moment its barely possible to have a conversation about the future due in part to some of the points you make but also because the level of risk aversion we've instilled in people and politicians will take a while to unwind.

It wasn’t directed at you. Just a segue on to issues that can be addressed now, rather than later.

[kukushkin88]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.

I’ve greatly enjoyed all of his books, he has strong, even forceful opinions on such a range of things and I don’t doubt he has a huge intellect. It’s is quite hard to assess the validity of lots of his stuff, as I feel like his main thing is being ahead of the curve and so there’s usually little corroborating or otherwise information, this situation is a bit different.

It seems strange that he has a long running low level feud with The Guardian, he mentions at least twice in the footnotes of his books that they don’t understand his work well enough to criticise it and in return they give his next book an even harsher review. It’s an odd one, where you’d expect both sides to be above it.

[Jon MW]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.

I’ve greatly enjoyed all of his books, he has strong, even forceful opinions on such a range of things and I don’t doubt he has a huge intellect. It’s is quite hard to assess the validity of lots of his stuff, as I feel like his main thing is being ahead of the curve and so there’s usually little corroborating or otherwise information, this situation is a bit different.

It seems strange that he has a long running low level feud with The Guardian, he mentions at least twice in the footnotes of his books that they don’t understand his work well enough to criticise it and in return they give his next book an even harsher review. It’s an odd one, where you’d expect both sides to be above it.

Is that the same Nassim Taleb who seems to strongly believe that ouzo/pastis will fight off COVID19?

[Pokerpops]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.

I’ve greatly enjoyed all of his books, he has strong, even forceful opinions on such a range of things and I don’t doubt he has a huge intellect. It’s is quite hard to assess the validity of lots of his stuff, as I feel like his main thing is being ahead of the curve and so there’s usually little corroborating or otherwise information, this situation is a bit different.

It seems strange that he has a long running low level feud with The Guardian, he mentions at least twice in the footnotes of his books that they don’t understand his work well enough to criticise it and in return they give his next book an even harsher review. It’s an odd one, where you’d expect both sides to be above it.

Is that the same Nassim Taleb who seems to strongly believe that ouzo/pastis will fight off COVID19?

Bazinga!

[kukushkin88]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.

I’ve greatly enjoyed all of his books, he has strong, even forceful opinions on such a range of things and I don’t doubt he has a huge intellect. It’s is quite hard to assess the validity of lots of his stuff, as I feel like his main thing is being ahead of the curve and so there’s usually little corroborating or otherwise information, this situation is a bit different.

It seems strange that he has a long running low level feud with The Guardian, he mentions at least twice in the footnotes of his books that they don’t understand his work well enough to criticise it and in return they give his next book an even harsher review. It’s an odd one, where you’d expect both sides to be above it.

Is that the same Nassim Taleb who seems to strongly believe that ouzo/pastis will fight off COVID19?

It’s a joke:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1251538096073715728?s=21

Maybe he should of made it more obvious he was joking?

“Strongly believe”?

[kukushkin88]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.

I’ve greatly enjoyed all of his books, he has strong, even forceful opinions on such a range of things and I don’t doubt he has a huge intellect. It’s is quite hard to assess the validity of lots of his stuff, as I feel like his main thing is being ahead of the curve and so there’s usually little corroborating or otherwise information, this situation is a bit different.

It seems strange that he has a long running low level feud with The Guardian, he mentions at least twice in the footnotes of his books that they don’t understand his work well enough to criticise it and in return they give his next book an even harsher review. It’s an odd one, where you’d expect both sides to be above it.

Is that the same Nassim Taleb who seems to strongly believe that ouzo/pastis will fight off COVID19?

It’s a joke:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1251538096073715728?s=21

Maybe he should of made it more obvious he was joking?

“Strongly believe”?

Although he did make it obvious he’s joking:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1251817824458285056?s=21

[kukushkin88]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.

I’ve greatly enjoyed all of his books, he has strong, even forceful opinions on such a range of things and I don’t doubt he has a huge intellect. It’s is quite hard to assess the validity of lots of his stuff, as I feel like his main thing is being ahead of the curve and so there’s usually little corroborating or otherwise information, this situation is a bit different.

It seems strange that he has a long running low level feud with The Guardian, he mentions at least twice in the footnotes of his books that they don’t understand his work well enough to criticise it and in return they give his next book an even harsher review. It’s an odd one, where you’d expect both sides to be above it.

Is that the same Nassim Taleb who seems to strongly believe that ouzo/pastis will fight off COVID19?

Bazinga!

Wouldn’t get too excited, he was only kidding.

He wasn’t joking here though:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-policy-scientific-dominic-cummings

[Jon MW]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.

I’ve greatly enjoyed all of his books, he has strong, even forceful opinions on such a range of things and I don’t doubt he has a huge intellect. It’s is quite hard to assess the validity of lots of his stuff, as I feel like his main thing is being ahead of the curve and so there’s usually little corroborating or otherwise information, this situation is a bit different.

It seems strange that he has a long running low level feud with The Guardian, he mentions at least twice in the footnotes of his books that they don’t understand his work well enough to criticise it and in return they give his next book an even harsher review. It’s an odd one, where you’d expect both sides to be above it.

Is that the same Nassim Taleb who seems to strongly believe that ouzo/pastis will fight off COVID19?

It’s a joke:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1251538096073715728?s=21

Maybe he should of made it more obvious he was joking?

“Strongly believe”?

Although he did make it obvious he’s joking:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1251817824458285056?s=21

The first time he tweeted it he didn't give any context like that - given tweets get picked up by random people and that a lot of people have died because they believed the rumour that drinking alcohol cures COVID19 - it might not have been the most responsible of jokes to make.

I think he's done some interesting things in the past to do with finance, statistics and risk management, but given he made a big splash by saying many finance analysts don't know what they're talking about and hide behind complexity it's 'interesting' that he's talked so much about how epidemiologists, doctors, infectious disease experts and the WHO also don't know what they're talking about - but he does.

[Jon MW]

...
He wasn’t joking here though:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-policy-scientific-dominic-cummings

But.. .from that article:

"The modellers use hypotheses/assumptions, which they then feed into models, and use to draw conclusions and make policy recommendations. Critically, they do not produce an error rate. What if these assumptions are wrong?"

Except they did have error rates, and ranges. Things like the R0 wasn't assumed in the model there was a likely R0 plus a higher and lower version. This was true in a number of the factors  in the models used.

"This was the case with the disastrous “herd immunity” thesis. ... Of course, this idea was nothing more than a dressed-up version of the “just do nothing” approach."
The UK isolated and tested everyone coming into the country for COVID19, everybody who tested positive then had their movements traced and everyone they came into contact with was tracked down to repeat the process. Travel advisories and restrictions were put in place, pandemic stores were inventoried and made ready and plans were drawn up for possible restrictions that might be necessary at a future date - that's a novel description of 'just do nothing'.

As discussed before there is no 'herd immunity' thesis - the original government plan was to tackle it in the same way every flu pandemic for the last 100 years was tackled. With travel restrictions and advisories, tracking and tracing and contingency plans for school closures and other restrictions. It was the updated data from Italy that changed the modelling to show this wasn't like those pandemics.

What he says about policy making is a mixture of rant and truth, there is an unknown amount that people will react under certain circumstances but his conclusion is a bit of a leap of faith.

He said with the unknown part in place then we should play it safe - the problem is that with human behaviour being unknown, it is not clear what playing it safe would be.

If we do a complete lockdown earlier - it might save lives by meaning less people get infected, but it might mean that they just get infected later on and it might mean that people just ignore the lockdown after they decide it's gone on too long.

It might mean you require everybody to wear masks, but it might mean that because everybody is wearing masks people bother a lot less about social distancing and hand washing and that actually makes it worse.

You can't criticise a policy for not dealing with the unknown while also advocating a policy which also doesn't deal with the unknown.

[kukushkin88]

Thanks for that post Doobs, lots to look in to.

I also just found out that Nassim Taleb is very active on Twitter, that’s weeks of reading for me.

For those not familiar, this guy, he’s been discussed quite a bit on the forum over the years:

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I thought I'd mentioned him a few weeks ago.  He was very good for a while, but then he didn't seem cynical enough with Didier Raoult (the promotor of chloroquine).   Ha, just checked and his last post mentioned Raoult.  FWIW I think there are doubts about his sturdy and the person.  For a doctor, he sure seems to attract a lot of bad press.  There are lots of big independet studies into this and other treatments across the World, so we will know soon enough if it is effective.

I’ve greatly enjoyed all of his books, he has strong, even forceful opinions on such a range of things and I don’t doubt he has a huge intellect. It’s is quite hard to assess the validity of lots of his stuff, as I feel like his main thing is being ahead of the curve and so there’s usually little corroborating or otherwise information, this situation is a bit different.

It seems strange that he has a long running low level feud with The Guardian, he mentions at least twice in the footnotes of his books that they don’t understand his work well enough to criticise it and in return they give his next book an even harsher review. It’s an odd one, where you’d expect both sides to be above it.

Is that the same Nassim Taleb who seems to strongly believe that ouzo/pastis will fight off COVID19?

It’s a joke:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1251538096073715728?s=21

Maybe he should of made it more obvious he was joking?

“Strongly believe”?

Although he did make it obvious he’s joking:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1251817824458285056?s=21

The first time he tweeted it he didn't give any context like that - given tweets get picked up by random people and that a lot of people have died because they believed the rumour that drinking alcohol cures COVID19 - it might not have been the most responsible of jokes to make.

I think he's done some interesting things in the past to do with finance, statistics and risk management, but given he made a big splash by saying many finance analysts don't know what they're talking about and hide behind complexity it's 'interesting' that he's talked so much about how epidemiologists, doctors, infectious disease experts and the WHO also don't know what they're talking about - but he does.

That’s part of who he is, undoubtedly an arrogant man (he still recognises awareness of your own shortcomings is vital), he is worth reading though, even (perhaps even especially) on this.

More detail here:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/04/taleb-the-only-man-who-has-a-clue.html

It’s a bad joke, given the situation and he is a bit nuts (in an excellent way). It seems likely he wouldn’t have realised anyone would think he was serious.

[kukushkin88]

...
He wasn’t joking here though:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-policy-scientific-dominic-cummings

But.. .from that article:

"The modellers use hypotheses/assumptions, which they then feed into models, and use to draw conclusions and make policy recommendations. Critically, they do not produce an error rate. What if these assumptions are wrong?"

Except they did have error rates, and ranges. Things like the R0 wasn't assumed in the model there was a likely R0 plus a higher and lower version. This was true in a number of the factors  in the models used.

"This was the case with the disastrous “herd immunity” thesis. ... Of course, this idea was nothing more than a dressed-up version of the “just do nothing” approach."
The UK isolated and tested everyone coming into the country for COVID19, everybody who tested positive then had their movements traced and everyone they came into contact with was tracked down to repeat the process. Travel advisories and restrictions were put in place, pandemic stores were inventoried and made ready and plans were drawn up for possible restrictions that might be necessary at a future date - that's a novel description of 'just do nothing'.

As discussed before there is no 'herd immunity' thesis - the original government plan was to tackle it in the same way every flu pandemic for the last 100 years was tackled. With travel restrictions and advisories, tracking and tracing and contingency plans for school closures and other restrictions. It was the updated data from Italy that changed the modelling to show this wasn't like those pandemics.

What he says about policy making is a mixture of rant and truth, there is an unknown amount that people will react under certain circumstances but his conclusion is a bit of a leap of faith.

He said with the unknown part in place then we should play it safe - the problem is that with human behaviour being unknown, it is not clear what playing it safe would be.

If we do a complete lockdown earlier - it might save lives by meaning less people get infected, but it might mean that they just get infected later on and it might mean that people just ignore the lockdown after they decide it's gone on too long.

It might mean you require everybody to wear masks, but it might mean that because everybody is wearing masks people bother a lot less about social distancing and hand washing and that actually makes it worse.

You can't criticise a policy for not dealing with the unknown while also advocating a policy which also doesn't deal with the unknown.

I can’t speak for him of course. Having read every book he’s written. I think he’d favour maximum control of the short term, where we can be moderately good at predicting things, while we maximally prepare for the medium/long term where we have almost no idea what will happen and end up guessing or do modelling, based on guesses. Because of this, the immediate unknowns are more important to address than the (distant) future unknowns.

He basically says it...”don’t flatten the curve, crush it”

[Jon MW]

...
He wasn’t joking here though:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-policy-scientific-dominic-cummings

But.. .from that article:

"The modellers use hypotheses/assumptions, which they then feed into models, and use to draw conclusions and make policy recommendations. Critically, they do not produce an error rate. What if these assumptions are wrong?"

Except they did have error rates, and ranges. Things like the R0 wasn't assumed in the model there was a likely R0 plus a higher and lower version. This was true in a number of the factors  in the models used.

"This was the case with the disastrous “herd immunity” thesis. ... Of course, this idea was nothing more than a dressed-up version of the “just do nothing” approach."
The UK isolated and tested everyone coming into the country for COVID19, everybody who tested positive then had their movements traced and everyone they came into contact with was tracked down to repeat the process. Travel advisories and restrictions were put in place, pandemic stores were inventoried and made ready and plans were drawn up for possible restrictions that might be necessary at a future date - that's a novel description of 'just do nothing'.

As discussed before there is no 'herd immunity' thesis - the original government plan was to tackle it in the same way every flu pandemic for the last 100 years was tackled. With travel restrictions and advisories, tracking and tracing and contingency plans for school closures and other restrictions. It was the updated data from Italy that changed the modelling to show this wasn't like those pandemics.

What he says about policy making is a mixture of rant and truth, there is an unknown amount that people will react under certain circumstances but his conclusion is a bit of a leap of faith.

He said with the unknown part in place then we should play it safe - the problem is that with human behaviour being unknown, it is not clear what playing it safe would be.

If we do a complete lockdown earlier - it might save lives by meaning less people get infected, but it might mean that they just get infected later on and it might mean that people just ignore the lockdown after they decide it's gone on too long.

It might mean you require everybody to wear masks, but it might mean that because everybody is wearing masks people bother a lot less about social distancing and hand washing and that actually makes it worse.

You can't criticise a policy for not dealing with the unknown while also advocating a policy which also doesn't deal with the unknown.

I can’t speak for him of course. Having read every book he’s written. I think he’d favour maximum control of the short term, where we can be moderately good at predicting things, while we maximally prepare for the medium/long term where we have almost no idea what will happen and end up guessing or do modelling, based on guesses. Because of this, the immediate unknowns are more important to address than the (distant) future unknowns.

He basically says it...”don’t flatten the curve, crush it”

But that's precisely the point - if you absolutely stop an epidemic it means no one is immune to it, so when it re emerges, which it will do, you get an epidemic that was identical to the one you were dealing with to start with.

This is as modelled by the epidemiologists and experts who he dismisses. He has said that they only know about past epidemics but can't model or predict unknown ones because they're new. That's the precise reason why epidemiologists do study past epidemics. Every 'new' disease was a novel virus when it first started, the more information we've had in the past makes it easier to predict how they'll go in the future. These contain uknowns - particularly human behaviour - but he seems to think that it would never occur to an expert in infectious diseases that there's more air travel now then there was in the past (for example), there are quite a few examples in his writing where he seems to think he has discovered an 'important' piece of information that he assumes nobody who actually deals with it their whole life would think of.

I know he's had some dealing with medicine in the past but his approach very much reminds me of this:

Click to see full-size image.

That wasn't the meme I was looking for but it'll do

[kukushkin88]

...
He wasn’t joking here though:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-policy-scientific-dominic-cummings

But.. .from that article:

"The modellers use hypotheses/assumptions, which they then feed into models, and use to draw conclusions and make policy recommendations. Critically, they do not produce an error rate. What if these assumptions are wrong?"

Except they did have error rates, and ranges. Things like the R0 wasn't assumed in the model there was a likely R0 plus a higher and lower version. This was true in a number of the factors  in the models used.

"This was the case with the disastrous “herd immunity” thesis. ... Of course, this idea was nothing more than a dressed-up version of the “just do nothing” approach."
The UK isolated and tested everyone coming into the country for COVID19, everybody who tested positive then had their movements traced and everyone they came into contact with was tracked down to repeat the process. Travel advisories and restrictions were put in place, pandemic stores were inventoried and made ready and plans were drawn up for possible restrictions that might be necessary at a future date - that's a novel description of 'just do nothing'.

As discussed before there is no 'herd immunity' thesis - the original government plan was to tackle it in the same way every flu pandemic for the last 100 years was tackled. With travel restrictions and advisories, tracking and tracing and contingency plans for school closures and other restrictions. It was the updated data from Italy that changed the modelling to show this wasn't like those pandemics.

What he says about policy making is a mixture of rant and truth, there is an unknown amount that people will react under certain circumstances but his conclusion is a bit of a leap of faith.

He said with the unknown part in place then we should play it safe - the problem is that with human behaviour being unknown, it is not clear what playing it safe would be.

If we do a complete lockdown earlier - it might save lives by meaning less people get infected, but it might mean that they just get infected later on and it might mean that people just ignore the lockdown after they decide it's gone on too long.

It might mean you require everybody to wear masks, but it might mean that because everybody is wearing masks people bother a lot less about social distancing and hand washing and that actually makes it worse.

You can't criticise a policy for not dealing with the unknown while also advocating a policy which also doesn't deal with the unknown.

I can’t speak for him of course. Having read every book he’s written. I think he’d favour maximum control of the short term, where we can be moderately good at predicting things, while we maximally prepare for the medium/long term where we have almost no idea what will happen and end up guessing or do modelling, based on guesses. Because of this, the immediate unknowns are more important to address than the (distant) future unknowns.

He basically says it...”don’t flatten the curve, crush it”

But that's precisely the point - if you absolutely stop an epidemic it means no one is immune to it, so when it re emerges, which it will do, you get an epidemic that was identical to the one you were dealing with to start with.

This is as modelled by the epidemiologists and experts who he dismisses. He has said that they only know about past epidemics but can't model or predict unknown ones because they're new. That's the precise reason why epidemiologists do study past epidemics. Every 'new' disease was a novel virus when it first started, the more information we've had in the past makes it easier to predict how they'll go in the future. These contain uknowns - particularly human behaviour - but he seems to think that it would never occur to an expert in infectious diseases that there's more air travel now then there was in the past (for example), there are quite a few examples in his writing where he seems to think he has discovered an 'important' piece of information that he assumes nobody who actually deals with it their whole life would think of.

I know he's had some dealing with medicine in the past but his approach very much reminds me of this:

Click to see full-size image.

That wasn't the meme I was looking for but it'll do

He would reckon that his intelligence transcends topics. It seems to me like he brings something interesting to most discussions, hopefully less ouzo and less bad jokes going forward.