In the second essay @mlipsitch makes a full throated defense of there is good science vs. everything else.

PS there is a lot of everything else online these days http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/marc-lipsitch-good-science-good-science">https://bostonreview.net/science-n...

And in the third essay, John Ioannidis argues that folks with his background do legitimately think differently about COVID19 https://bostonreview.net/science-nature/john-p-ioannidis-totality-evidence">https://bostonreview.net/science-n...

Fascinating series of essays

I think we have to remember that Policy decisions are influenced by science, informed by science, but they are not science. They are a social decision.

@jflier and I have been hopeful in a series of op-eds in @statnews

That we should include interdisciplinary scholars in these discussions and that we should think broadly about the effects of our actions

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/

andhttps://www.statnews.com/2020/04/2... href=" https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/14/underderstanding-covid-19-supernova-human-history-multiple-perspectives/">https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/1...

Understanding Covid-19, a 'supernova in human history' - STAT

Understanding the full impact of Covid-19 will take the work of economists, epidemiologists, historians, philosophers, sociologists, and many others.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/

I think it is important to read all these essays

There is much more at stake here than whether the IFR is 0.2 or 0.6; going from there to what we must do at any point in time is not a straight line, is bound to be contentious, and may not have a & #39;right& #39; answer; only tradeoffs