Originally Posted by
OVC010CB
I'm perplexed at how the public policy response to COVID-19 is not based on proven science.
At best, there is a scarcity of epidemiological data regarding the effectiveness of social distancing and wearing of masks, yet these two methods have become the primary means of containment. Modelling analysis is of questionable relevance, a particularly relevant example are the documented inaccuracies and volatility of the IHME COVID-19 output.
How can such initiatives be justified when there is no peer reviewed evidence that they are effective? Are we moving the goalposts because of politically charged emotion and confirmation bias?
Not alltot of empical data on the front end (where it started) to fully validate what you seek. As this virus "scales" we learn more. As it scales into western cultures with more modern medical capabilities and more robust health care systems we learn more. Modeling is really used to show "worst case". The models are simply tools used to forecast not unlike an upper level weather prog chart. To me it reminds me of forecasting "hurricane models." Are those models correct? nearly correct? They are just forecasting tools. The non-medical people are placing too much emphasis in the models.
The goal posts will move based on three factors: known science, forecasted/estimated science (which is an art form), will of the people.
The citizens are getting restless and stir crazy. This translates to the will of the people. Everyone staying at home doesn't improve our immune response. So, while it may be really bad to get people infected, it may be better for their immune systems to be exposed to it. The sooner we all get exposed, the smarter our immune systems become and the sooner man-kind can get back to work, school, and play.
While it would be great to have a vaccine to help our immune system we don't have one yet. maybe we never get one? I don't know, but the show must go on so to speak.