Read on Twitter
Epidemiologists are some of the most powerful people on the planet at the moment.
The attitude of "how dare you scrutinise them", or "stay in your lane don't question them" - whilst it might be fine when they were just like any other academics - is dangerously inappropriate now.
The attitude of "how dare you scrutinise them", or "stay in your lane don't question them" - whilst it might be fine when they were just like any other academics - is dangerously inappropriate now.
That includes asking about GRE scores, labour market competitiveness, and forecasting ability.
We're dealing with a worldwide suspension of civil liberties.
Whether our new overlords are medical school dropouts or people who found theoretical physics not hard enough matters.
We're dealing with a worldwide suspension of civil liberties.
Whether our new overlords are medical school dropouts or people who found theoretical physics not hard enough matters.
I think people are really blind to the power dynamics here.
Even if individual epidemiologists are like you and me, the discipline as a whole has placed billions of people under house arrest, and will totally dominate state action for ~ a whole year from now.
Even if individual epidemiologists are like you and me, the discipline as a whole has placed billions of people under house arrest, and will totally dominate state action for ~ a whole year from now.
Under these conditions, what could be more important than @tylercowen's questions here? https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/what-does-this-economist-think-of-epidemiology.html
Pretending every discipline is exactly the same, and that there is no data whatsoever to judge them by, might prevent hurt feelings.
But that's plainly absurd.
Pretending every discipline is exactly the same, and that there is no data whatsoever to judge them by, might prevent hurt feelings.
But that's plainly absurd.
Even his technical questions are worthwhile.
Maybe ordinarily it'd be okay to respond "trust us, we've considered these things / have no need to".
But when you wield this much power, accountability to outsiders is in order - and that includes to academics in other disciplines.
Maybe ordinarily it'd be okay to respond "trust us, we've considered these things / have no need to".
But when you wield this much power, accountability to outsiders is in order - and that includes to academics in other disciplines.
Epidemiologists' business is now all of our business, and - just like other power wielders such as politicians - should be subject to subject to whatever scrutiny we can bring.
Asking them to reassure us they're not ignorant of the relevant economics is the least they can do.
Asking them to reassure us they're not ignorant of the relevant economics is the least they can do.
And in any case, at least to a layperson, it's not like they've given us much reason to have confidence in them: https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1246266036019777537?s=19
I support the lockdowns.
But we really need to take seriously the loss of liberty they entail, and not shut down our scrutiny of power.
The fact that academics are in charge shouldn't change that. Just like everybody else, they are neither all-wise nor all-benevolent. /End
But we really need to take seriously the loss of liberty they entail, and not shut down our scrutiny of power.
The fact that academics are in charge shouldn't change that. Just like everybody else, they are neither all-wise nor all-benevolent. /End
