[deadpannini]

This is all beside the point at hand, but I suppose it's still about epistemology, so I'd like to stand up for my old position, even though I understand it looks foolish in retrospect.

The fact that so much was unknown was part of the reason I thought testing might have a different effect than the flu. Well into the pandemic, the vast majority of people feared COVID much more than the flu, so it seemed they would be much more likely to take precautions to avoid getting it or spreading it. But that fear attenuated over time, especially as people lost trust in the alarmist if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage.

Finally, your hostility is unwarranted: I am and have been a strong proponent of vaccines and I was fully on board to "flatten the curve", even for a short period of lockdowns. But I am not and never have been in favor of permanent midnight.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

Your position looked foolish then. Consider that maybe you don't do well in situations without perfect information and take that into account in the future.

The two most authoritarian countries on this earth (china and North Korea) were not able to get covid "to near zero". China literally had tanks rolling up and down their streets to enforce said curfew.

The idea that somehow the US (or similar western countries) were ever going to get there was always outlandish, as was the idea that it was worth giving up what makes us different from China and NK to do so (Australia is struggling with this question now).

---

Assumptions you made.

1. That human behavior was anywhere near the major deciding factor in covid transmission approaching zero

2. That covid transmission approaching zero was the most important factor

#2 is akin to always turning right in a vehicle because safety is the only concern. It was NEVER a good thought process.

---

And finally, the point here isn't that there were a lot of unknowns, it's that many people were RIGHT, and they got shouted down by people like you whose thinking was entirely flawed. There's a canyon of difference between being wrong because you just didn't know and being wrong because the entire platform you were basing it on turned out to be wrong.

[SR2Z]

Who was right?

The shelter-in-place orders were UNQUESTIONABLY damaging to people's mental health and livelihoods. They were what made the difference - the whole "stand six feet apart" thing did very little, and mask mandates were rarely enforced in consistent, useful ways.

Aggressive testing would have allowed various jurisdictions to scale restrictions up and down as necessary to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed while also not wrecking many people's lives.

"Near zero" was probably never possible, but we could have managed the response much better if our government did not say horseshit like "the numbers go up if you measure them!"

If there is another pandemic, or another variant, or whatever - the government will not be able to ask for more shelter-in-place orders. They have burned so much goodwill and energy among the people who spent two years shut-in with deteriorating mental health who had to watch the hamfisted response of the United States to this crisis.

[deadpannini]

I think you should perhaps cool down.

1) I am admitting that I was wrong and updated. That includes updating on my thought process, just like you are so ardently suggesting.

2) Ninety percent of your assumptions about me are wrong. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, or what "many people were RIGHT" about.

> There's a canyon of difference between being wrong because you just didn't know and being wrong because the entire platform you were basing it on turned out to be wrong.

What is the "platform" I was basing it on?

[bombcar]

If I were to be charitable to the post you're replying to, they're trying to show that your takeaway is wrong - instead of saying you changed your mind based on new evidence you should instead say "I was wrong to think I had the knowledge, training, or skills to make a decision and use that decision to influence others".

[deadpannini]

Yes, and I agree that it's always important to keep that possibility in mind. I am generally keenly aware of uncertainty normally shy away from bad bets (predictions).

But taken too far, that principle leads to abdicating our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy, so while I was definitely chastened by the experience I will kindly decline the invitation to shut up: I choose to get better instead. The sum total of my influence on this matter has been, at worst, to encourage quicker and more widespread adoption of home tests, which falls very short of pernicious.

I'm quite puzzled by P5fRxh5kUvp2th's vitriol - maybe he or she is ardently pro-mask? Since I alluded to my low opinion of mask mandates (which I stand behind), that could explain it.

[bombcar]

Heh my knowledge has lead me to realize that the best course of action is for me to abdicate any democratic responsibilities because I clearly don’t know anything about anything.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

Correct, imagine if they had recognized not having enough information and chose not to form an opinion that needed changing once more evidence was gathered?

Imagine if they had chosen not to be a loudmouth (their words), and thereby adding to the cacophony of uselessness that happened around that time?

The problem isn't that they reached the wrong conclusion, it's how __CONFIDENT__ they were in that conclusion despite NO ONE knowing enough about covid at the time.

[SR2Z]

Do you think that every single facet of the response we had to COVID was correct and useful?

The evidence does suggest that better testing could have reduced the death rate while also allowing for gentler, more calibrated responses.

Near zero? Not in the US - but in the places that DID achieve that feat, testing was critical.

You are being absurdly harsh. Many experts have been trained by decades of "peacetime" to be conservative with their assumptions and requests. Just think back to "stand six feet apart" and "you can take your mask off while eating" to see why that is a problem.