Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Go to your local hospital and ask them how they'd like it if their case load went up by 2x due to a lack of "halfway measures."

I love this argument.

"Just imagine how much worse things could have been! The observed outcome is better than a worst case scenario I made up!"

"Just imagine if I didn't wear my lucky socks to the game. We would have lost even worse!"

The data does not bear out your position. Places with less / no mandates did not have measurably worse outcomes.



Places with less / no mandates did not have measurably worse outcomes.

A meaningless statement without context. Places with different levels of mandates also tend to be disparate in terms of population density and demographics. A cherry-picked study showing that masks weren't needed to conserve hospital utilization in Bumfark, Oklahoma will tell us nothing about what to expect in crowded urban areas.

Then there's the easily-justified suspicion that officials in right-leaning areas are rigging the data they report ("Stop testing so much, it makes us look bad!")

These debates always seem to turn into perpetual playground games where duelling studies are whipped out like Magic cards. For every one you cite, I'll cite one that says something else. Consensus is the only way to make good decisions in such an epistemic environment. I'll continue to look to public health authorities for that, not bloggers, podcasters, politicians, celebrities, or HN commenters.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: