What's not true? The revised model? The number on said model? The fact that doomsday prophets are wrong every time? The hyperbolic call to give me your stuff?
You'll have to be more specific, so I can provide more data about why it is true. Scott Adams might be right about some things, but he's human, and he's wrong about some things as well. Risk assessments are something lots of people get wrong almost all of the time.
So it's the numbers. Admittedly, they were inflated. The initial model was horribly wrong. The revised model was horribly wrong. The revised revised model was horribly wrong. The one I referred to was off by what, a factor of 6? Why would you ever trust an institution which was wrong every single time they showed you their guess?
For Scott Adams to be right, the following things have to be true:
Our initial model of the virus was correct
Social distancing and lockdowns have been far more effective than expected
Here's why I can say he's most likely wrong:
The initial model was the one made with the least information about the virus
Lockdowns, at the very least, have widely been disregarded
Our understanding of the virus now shows that social distancing was probably not as effective as we thought it was -- 6 feet does not make significant changes in how effective the virus was at spreading. See the papers on aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on medarxiv
The secondary model did not change the assumptions from the initial model
People inherently overestimate risk of thing they don't know much about
People inherently overestimate the effect of their own actions on a change in risk
The two big things I want to point out -- we have to have correct estimated the risk of the unknown to get the first model right, and underestimated the effect of our own actions. Put frankly, one of those things might have happened, but the chance that both happened, in the middle of a panic frenzy, is exceedingly unlikely. That 100k number was bullshit from the gate, as was the 1-2M number. Keep that in mind when authority figures claim they've "saved" you from everything.
In short, garbage in, garbage out -- and we know for certain the models are garbage out, because their ability to predict results hasn't even been as good as a monkey flinging poop away from a dart board.
What's not true? The revised model? The number on said model? The fact that doomsday prophets are wrong every time? The hyperbolic call to give me your stuff?
You'll have to be more specific, so I can provide more data about why it is true. Scott Adams might be right about some things, but he's human, and he's wrong about some things as well. Risk assessments are something lots of people get wrong almost all of the time.
So it's the numbers. Admittedly, they were inflated. The initial model was horribly wrong. The revised model was horribly wrong. The revised revised model was horribly wrong. The one I referred to was off by what, a factor of 6? Why would you ever trust an institution which was wrong every single time they showed you their guess?
For Scott Adams to be right, the following things have to be true:
Here's why I can say he's most likely wrong:
The two big things I want to point out -- we have to have correct estimated the risk of the unknown to get the first model right, and underestimated the effect of our own actions. Put frankly, one of those things might have happened, but the chance that both happened, in the middle of a panic frenzy, is exceedingly unlikely. That 100k number was bullshit from the gate, as was the 1-2M number. Keep that in mind when authority figures claim they've "saved" you from everything.
In short, garbage in, garbage out -- and we know for certain the models are garbage out, because their ability to predict results hasn't even been as good as a monkey flinging poop away from a dart board.