AirWorthy99 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:
To err on the side of science when based on flawed and wrong data we are taking the economy to a depression, there should be a balanced approach.
How about all experts and scientist warn us that a meteor will strike the world and kill much of it, should the world believe them and side with them and err on the side of science?
I live in Florida, I can count many many times meteorologists have said a hurricane will come, only not to show up, I used this example before, its ok to err on the side of science there, but to a certain extent, I am not going to fill my van with my family and drive to Illinois out of fear, I should be prepared here . We should be prepared for pandemics, but not to shut down life the way we have just based on anecdotal information.
You are conflating too many things without nuance to respond to. A quick primer: meteorites ≠ viral pandemics (and 'asteroids' threaten the Earth, they are not 'meteorites' until they survive atmospheric entry - 'meteors' are the ionization trails you see from material burning up in the atmosphere). Hurricane forecast models ≠ viral pandemics. Flawed data ≠ improper or unwise prevention protocols. Scientific illiteracy ≠ objective accuracy about 'overreaction'
Well, to me it seems that either the scientists are throwing projections or calculations that have seriously missed their mark all the while other things un related are getting worse by acting on their recommendations.
Oh boy, back to square one. You still don't know why the projections 'missed the mark'? There is no mark - statistical analysis for probability is not target practice.