PLAYPEN: Covid-19 Everything Political

[Alan Klein]

Man plans.  God laughs.

[James Clark]

Although I may certainly agree with this statement, having contradictory expert opinions and then admonishing people for not following "your expert" kind of destroys this point.  And often the expert whom you like to consider as being yours is associated not with his/her past credibility, but where they fall on the political scale and whether or not they say the right thing.  This kind of lunacy has even cost lefties their jobs, for example Yale Lecturer Resigns After Email on Halloween Costumes.

Exactly what you're indulging in every time you cite Hanson.  Can't you see that? And I know very few people that think the Yale thing you referenced makes sense.

Not to mention the litany of "groundbreaking" expert opinions in non-scientific fields contradicting past research in more scientific fields, along with common sense, pushed by the left goes to the foundation of providing more distrust in experts.  A great example is out of gender studies stating that gender differences are nothing but societal constructs.  This contradicts all psychological studies on the issue, not to mention common sense, yet we are force feed this, and if we publicly disagree are banished.  Of course there are many others too, especially when it comes to public policy.

If "all psychological studies" disagree with claims about gender, it seems to follow that those claiming otherwise are not the "experts."  Besides, my understanding is that people are advocating for the idea that "gender" as a societal construct is separate and distinct from the biological construct if "sex."  Unless you subscribe to the idea that there is one specific way that a "man" or "woman" has to act, I'm not sure I see what the problem with that is?

It is this over the past few years which is creating a distrust in experts, and it is solely the lefts doing.  How can you expect the public to retain their trust in you after this?  The largest percentage of deaths in the USA happened in nursing homes, and yet the health experts in NY government forced nursing home to take back those who tested positive.  This, in itself, destroys a large chunk of their trust.

No. The left isn't the group that generally says that the media and the experts are lying to us all, and only they know the REAL truth.   If you want to indict the left for being to credible and drawing conclusions too easily, I can get on board with that (though I'd argue that's a media problem that spans political leanings), but let's not pretend that the left is the group out there pumping up populist garbage.  (Except for the anti-vaxxers.  For some reason, the left is rife with those).

[chez]

But it begs the question.  Which expert do you believe?

Quite often there is a consensus between experts so that makes it easier. I'd much rather rely on an outdated expert than the local bar tender.

Unfortunately life is never black and white Alan...seems like you are looking for 100% perfect information...but one always needs to use their own brains with inputs from the experts.

[Alan Klein]

Why did 99% of financial and investment experts not see the 2008 recession?  Afterwards, everyone could see that the real estate market was a bubble and way overbought.  Then, everyone said they should have sold.  These things often take on a life of their own. Some of it is political.  We're seeing that now as blame is being thrown around.

But often, it's just the way humans are.  We tend to listen to others and repeat the nonsense.  Experts are just as lazy as the rest of us. Or, they don't have time to do their own research, so they parrot other experts.  Everyone is just preaching to the choir.  Experts get locked into one or two facts and don't look at the big picture or have all the elements to come to a better estimate.  GIGO.    Common sense also fails people who don't look past the statistics. 

We often refuse to listen to what others say because we know better.  After all, who here listening to all these experts posting, has actually changed their minds about near damn anything in 208 pages?

[JoeKitchen]

By "modern standards" no one would have been, really.  It was an emerging field, and yes, other people had other ideas that were wrong, and the Wrights were, er, right   The point, though, is that the Wrights accomplishment wasn't the result of the "common man" succeeding where "experts" could not.   The Wrights has as much, or more, grounding in a combined understanding of fabrication/engineering and flight concepts as anyone else did.

Not regardless.  Merely moreso than people hat have no basis for the assumptions they are making.  I'll repeat - experts can and are wrong.  But far more often than not, an epidemiologist is going to understand the course of a pandemic better than you will, or I will, or Richard Epstein will.


A sfar as I can tell, hanson isn't a straight-up white nationalist like Stephen Miller, but for an historian trained to notice macro trends, he sure does rely on anecdotal evidence about hispanics adn blacks to draw some pretty nutty conclusions (like, "be afraid of groups of young black people" and "hispanics are probably here tro have anchor babies")

First, in regards to Hanson, those article links you posted are not the titles, but apparent quotes in those articles, which I consider deliberately misleading.  None the less, poorly stated ideas on his part, certainly, that I was not aware of.  Thanks for bring them to my attention. 

Now, insofar as the Wrights, what, in your definition, separates one from the common man? 

Lets assume that the Wrights were just beaten by another engineer of the time, but still performed all of the other experiments that lead up that fateful moment.  Lets assume that the test run at Kitty Hawk still happened, only it was never documented with no witnesses and as they were heading off to Paris, someone else put on a show.  What would have happened? 

Of course they would have not gotten the fame and fortune, rightfully so, but would they have been able to point too their work and gotten positions on the team?  Would they have been taken seriously enough to teach at a university? 

The fact is, they were "common men" up until the debut at Paris.  Prior to that, no one would have taken them seriously. 

[Alan Klein]

Quite often there is a consensus between experts so that makes it easier. I'd much rather rely on an outdated expert than the local bar tender.

Unfortunately life is never black and white Alan...seems like you are looking for 100% perfect information...but one always needs to use their own brains with inputs from the experts.

You didn't answer my question.  It wasn't should you believe the bartender or the expert.  My question was do you believe expert #1 or expert #2.  Did you ever listen to the stock market shows after the market closes?  One guy say the market's going up tomorrow; the other says it's going down.  Both have 35 years in the financial business as stock pickers.  How can two experts have such differing conclusions.  AFter all, the markets are full of statistics, probably more than in most decisions we have to make in life.  Statistics that go back for years.  Ever go to a race track and read the charts.  Every last statistic about the horse, the jockey, the trainer, etc is listed.  Does it help you pick winners any easier?

So what is it about statistics and experts that often lead us astray?  Savvy politicians have gotten us into wars they could have avoided.  My last post probably covers some of the reasons.  But I'm interested in knowing what you and other think the problem is with experts?  Do they actually give better advice than a layman with good common sense?  Why do experts have such varying beliefs over the same topic? How does one distinguish good expert advice from just a lot of bloviating? 

[JoeKitchen]

Exactly what you're indulging in every time you cite Hanson.  Can't you see that? And I know very few people that think the Yale thing you referenced makes sense.

If "all psychological studies" disagree with claims about gender, it seems to follow that those claiming otherwise are not the "experts."  Besides, my understanding is that people are advocating for the idea that "gender" as a societal construct is separate and distinct from the biological construct if "sex."  Unless you subscribe to the idea that there is one specific way that a "man" or "woman" has to act, I'm not sure I see what the problem with that is?

No. The left isn't the group that generally says that the media and the experts are lying to us all, and only they know the REAL truth.   If you want to indict the left for being too credible and drawing conclusions too easily, I can get on board with that (though I'd argue that's a media problem that spans political leanings), but let's not pretend that the left is the group out there pumping up populist garbage.  (Except for the anti-vaxxers.  For some reason, the left is rife with those).

Well, I cant quote everyone all of the time.  And although with the Yale incident, many think it was crazy, they were still thrown under the bus by the university.  Until this changes, until universities stop giving into mob rule of the students, this will continue to hurt the credibility of universities. 

In bold, perhaps this is our common ground.  Although, if you blame the media for spin, and the media is where our info comes from, that still is a reason to question expert opinion since we are getting it from the horse's mouth. 

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, two of your points are something I know about without having to Google:
1. Masks. It is true that we were told not to wear masks in the beginning unless you were positive. That was before they discovered that positive, asymptomatic people existed. They then said, in case you are
    asymptomatic, wear a mask. That makes sense to me.

2. It is true that the WHO said that there was no evidence (I think early January) of human-to-human transfer, then a few days later evidence did become available. That's why they call it a "novel"
    virus. We are still learning new things about it each day. What is so difficult about understanding that?

There is no doubt what experts are saying about the disease today might change tomorrow. It sounds like it will be a few years before this thing is fully understood - start learning to live with that.

I have just been watching a Webinar by one our local scientists and he said to the host, "please don't call me a Covid-19 expert, I am not, and neither is anyone else in the world!"

If you appreciate the above, then you have to ask yourself, "why can't Victor Davis Hanson (a supposedly clever man) not understand this?"

The only conclusion you can reach is that he has some kind of agenda...

"... please don't call me a Covid-19 expert, I am not, and neither is anyone else in the world!", that is refreshing candor.  We need more of this.  I fear though that this will never make it in American politics. 

Perhaps if we did have experts go on stage every day and say, listen, none of us really know what this virus will do, it would diminish much of the angst out there.  However, going to James' point, I dont see the media really going along with this. 

I think part of the problem is many are using the appeal to authority fallacy, and we are expected to go along with it.  Although I am an architectural photographer, I do not have authority to talk on lifestyle photography conclusively.  (I've tried shooting lifestyle, it's not good.)  So although many would think my opinion on lifestyle would be good to follow, it is not.

No one is a COVID-19 expert, therefore no one has authority to speak on this yet.  It's all ad hoc, and if people would just come out and say that, mentalities would be better.  Politicians typically speak from authority though, and those that dont get destroyed in the press.  Not the best recipe. 

[John Camp]

<snip>
If you appreciate the above, then you have to ask yourself, "why can't Victor Davis Hanson (a supposedly clever man) not understand this?"
<snip>

After several confusing decades as a journalist, I arrived at a few firm conclusions. One of them was "Never trust anyone who uses three or more names."

[chez]

You didn't answer my question.  It wasn't should you believe the bartender or the expert.  My question was do you believe expert #1 or expert #2.  Did you ever listen to the stock market shows after the market closes?  One guy say the market's going up tomorrow; the other says it's going down.  Both have 35 years in the financial business as stock pickers.  How can two experts have such differing conclusions.  AFter all, the markets are full of statistics, probably more than in most decisions we have to make in life.  Statistics that go back for years.  Ever go to a race track and read the charts.  Every last statistic about the horse, the jockey, the trainer, etc is listed.  Does it help you pick winners any easier?

So what is it about statistics and experts that often lead us astray?  Savvy politicians have gotten us into wars they could have avoided.  My last post probably covers some of the reasons.  But I'm interested in knowing what you and other think the problem is with experts?  Do they actually give better advice than a layman with good common sense?  Why do experts have such varying beliefs over the same topic? How does one distinguish good expert advice from just a lot of bloviating?

I did answer. Seek other experts opinions and then use your own brain to figure out who to trust. Quite often there is a bell curve of expert opinions. You decide if you want to be on the bell or sitting on the edge.

Like I told you many times...you have to make daily decisions in life. Who do you trust your medical decisions on...your doctor(s) or your barber. Who do you trust your haircut decisions on...your doctor or your barber. I think if you actually look at your daily life and the decisions you make...you'll quickly come to your own realization rather than asking the same questions over and over and over...

[James Clark]

After a few confusion decades as a journalist, I arrived at a few firm conclusions. One of them was "Never trust anyone who uses three or more names."

How come so many killers have the name, "Ray?"

[LesPalenik]

I did answer. Seek other experts opinions and then use your own brain to figure out who to trust. Quite often there is a bell curve of expert opinions. You decide if you want to be on the bell or sitting on the edge.

Like I told you many times...you have to make daily decisions in life. Who do you trust your medical decisions on...your doctor(s) or your barber. Who do you trust your haircut decisions on...your doctor or your barber. I think if you actually look at your daily life and the decisions you make...you'll quickly come to your own realization rather than asking the same questions over and over and over...

Some medical advice from some doctors could be life threatening. Why do you think, astute patients get a second or third opinion? I don't know any barber whom I would trust with my medical questions, usually I consult such matters with my friend, a retired professor. My doctors are great for prescribing any test requisitions I ask for. Now, if I get should wrong haircut opinion from the doctor, professor or even barber, it's no tragedy, in two months it will be all forgotten.

[chez]

Some medical advice from some doctors could be life threatening. Why do you think, astute patients get a second or third opinion? I don't know any barber whom I would trust with my medical questions, usually I consult such matters with my friend, a retired professor. My doctors are great for prescribing any test requisitions I ask for. Now, if I get should wrong haircut opinion from the doctor, professor or even barber, it's no tragedy, in two months it will be all forgotten.

But that's exactly my point. If you are not comfortable with your doctor's opinion, you seek another doctor's opinion...not what your barber thinks. So for a given question, you seek opinion(s) from people that know things about your questions, the experts...not any random person on the street.

[John Camp]

But that's exactly my point. If you are not comfortable with your doctor's opinion, you seek another doctor's opinion...not what your barber thinks. So for a given question, you seek opinion(s) from people that know things about your questions, the experts...not any random person on the street.

Not entirely true. I once thought about buying a small country golf course. My barber said, "John, you don't know a fuckin' thing about running a golf course." He was right, so I didn't.

[LesPalenik]

But that's exactly my point. If you are not comfortable with your doctor's opinion, you seek another doctor's opinion...not what your barber thinks. So for a given question, you seek opinion(s) from people that know things about your questions, the experts...not any random person on the street.

I fully agree, and I try to obtain multiple insights before I make my own decision. But as Alan points out, often the experts give conflicting advice, and the poor bastards don't know whom to believe. For example, one doctor recommends a plant-based diet, the other a ketogenic one, and the third a mediterrean style. And I'm not even going into the beverages.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... some pretty nutty conclusions (like, "be afraid of groups of young black people" ...

Nutty!? As someone who spent 12 years in Chicago, I can tell you that is a perfectly sensible recommendation. Especially when the knockout game became popular even in such previously virgin areas like the Magnificent Mile.

[James Clark]

Nutty!? As someone who spent 12 years in Chicago, I can tell you that is a perfectly sensible recommendation. Especially when the knockout game became popular even in such previously virgin areas like the Magnificent Mile.

Six incidents make it reasonable to condemn an entire demographic? 

[Robert Roaldi]

Nutty!? As someone who spent 12 years in Chicago, I can tell you that is a perfectly sensible recommendation. Especially when the knockout game became popular even in such previously virgin areas like the Magnificent Mile.

If you're a black guy out jogging in Georgia, you need to watch out for 2 white guys in pick-up trucks. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/11/us/ahmaud-arbery-mcmichael-what-we-know/index.html)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I do not vouch for the accuracy of this map, but it sounds interesting and worth debunking, if not true.

Like crime, C19 is local, in spite of the name "pandemic." Therefore, one-solution-fits-all is hardly a solution. Quarantine NY and surrounding areas and ⅔ of the problem is solved.

[Robert Roaldi]

I do not vouch for the accuracy of this map, but it sounds interesting and worth debunking, if not true.

Like crime, C19 is local, in spite of the name "pandemic." Therefore, one-solution-fits-all is hardly a solution. Quarantine NY and surrounding areas and ⅔ of the problem is solved.

I can see a couple of issues. How does that map change over time? A static picture may not give you all the needed info to implement a plan that can work. And I can imagine that it would be very difficult to try and implement a plan that varies neighbourhood by neighbourhood, just from the point of view of getting the message out and understood by people. It seemed to be confusing enough as it was.