In fairness, sticking to facts is just a different kind of insanityIs there an "add to sanity list button" at ET?
It literally triggers me whenever someone pushes bullshit, regardless of the political lean. This said, I have been hearing lately that math/data has a liberal bias (to the point that someone told me that Bertrands ballot theorem was "bad math")
.It's gently over, if you believe the data and I, personally, have no reason to think the data is wrong. The discussion should be about what kinds of conclusions are we going to make based on this data and what policy decisions are we going to make based on these conclusions.2nd Wave UK ( Sheilders ) zero excess mortality so far and interestingly near Zero cases of standard Flu, 8% is about right on excess mortality from Wave 1, it ran below average for a few months after, expect next years deaths will be lower aswell.
Ah, now are finally talking. The real question that we need to ponder is how proportional is the response to this pandemic. I am not gonna pretend to have the right answer because it's a complex decision. However, I definitely feel that some of these responses should have changed as we discovered more about the nature of enemy and who the vulnerable population is.But I don't consider a 8% increase in deaths on the year, to be worth the level of damage done to all, 1mil extra people unemployeed in the UK so far, more to come, 400bil costs, schooling ruined for kids, grades estimated.
Unfortunately, the policy decision boils down to asymmetric costs to the decision stakeholders. In the current state, policymakers and decision-makers want to err on the side of caution at the cost of long-term consequences.