Follow The Science of the Covid Pandemic

follow the science, covid pandemic
Click image to enlarge

We’re often told told that truth is relative. That is except when it comes to “The Science.” Then it’s absolute. And we must follow the science.

But it’s kinda tough to pin down “The Science.” It’s always changing. Especially when it comes to Covid 19 models.

A piece by an economist named Brian Wesbury appeared in Real Clear Politics comparing the 2008 mortgage crisis to the current covid crisis. Lenders in 2008 were required to value their assets at market prices. It’s called marking to market. The idea was to “insist on the truth.” But the truth was that the mortgage market didn’t want the stuff. So the banks failed and the larger markets crashed.

Now Wesbury says pandemic authorities want us to mark to scientific models. But the models have never been accurate:

States and municipalities shut down their economies — based on models that predicted 2.2 million deaths in the United States. Hospitals, they said, would be overwhelmed, so we must flatten the curve.  The result? They flattened the economy, risking even more lives in the process, and generated panic that made the markets illiquid!

Brian Wesbury – Real Clear Politics

One Response to Follow The Science of the Covid Pandemic

  1. Patrick Zuraski says:

    I already submitted this Letter to the Editor at the AAEC website and then discovered this site. My letter was never published in the Colorado Springs Gazette.
    The editorial cartoon in the May 13 edition of the Gazette [“Which Science,” by Chip Bok] seems to imply that the public has not been well-served by information pertaining to the current health crisis coming from scientists and public health officials. A motorist (signifying the general public) encounters three road signs leading to different destinations (eventual mortality figures for the virus) – two million deaths, 134,000 deaths or 72,000 deaths. The motorist exclaims, “Which Science?” and seems to be completely frustrated and frightened because of an inability to decide which route leads to the eventual outcome.

    The numbers do not result from different “sciences.” Rather, potential outcomes emanate from only one science – epidemiology. The number of deaths is necessarily predicated upon how the population responds to this virus. Perhaps, more than anything, the primary culprit is the ease with which it spreads. How we choose to counteract the transmissibility will determine the mortality.

    Health officials tell us that two million deaths could occur if we just pretend that everything is fine and take no special measures. At the other extreme, 72,000 deaths might be the outcome if the response to the virus includes extensive testing and long periods of “stay at home.” In between, the number of deaths might be in the vicinity of 134,000 with less extensive testing and shorter periods of isolation. “It all depends,” right? Could one expect otherwise?

    Please, Mr. Bok, frame the issue appropriately. It is not a matter of WHICH SCIENCE? Rather, it is a matter of WHICH RESPONSE!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *