The first comment out of my statistics professor's mouth was "statistics don't lie but people do." This is the problem with using "models" to explain " a situation. They are only a theory until verified by actual circumstances.
The problem with a theory is it starts with the personal biases of the author who just wants to prove "their theory" is correct.
Thus, in recent years we have seen not everyone is to be trusted proving what my professor said is true.
Grandpa ClydeJune 3, 2020
Great article. It is presentations like the one you shared in the article that have been making me crazy for the last three months. All the fear mongering is made even worse when we are told that to be good citizens everyone has to be treated as if they are in one of the hotspots, such as NYC. Would they do the same to NYC if the only hotspots were in WY or UT?
ScottHJune 3, 2020
The real problem is not the math. It's an excessive belief in the power of coercion to provide safety. The question should not be whether elitists of any stripe have good math. It should be whether coercive approaches are superior to liberty. Liberty certainly comes with risks. But I think this article makes it clear that those risks are preferable to the risks of living in a state of fear and coercion. Under liberty, we trust that people (as well as businesses, churches, nursing homes, etc.) have sufficient incentives to sufficiently manage the risks with which we live without excessive coercion. Besides, bad actors in free systems tend to still be bad actors under coercive systems.
Linda S.June 3, 2020
I agree with the author. This whole situation has been entirely blown up and has been fodder for liberalism. I don't agree that this "doctor" is an intelligent person. If so, she would have done much more research than she actually did, if indeed she did any.
Comments | Return to Story
Bob JonesJune 15, 2020
The first comment out of my statistics professor's mouth was "statistics don't lie but people do." This is the problem with using "models" to explain " a situation. They are only a theory until verified by actual circumstances. The problem with a theory is it starts with the personal biases of the author who just wants to prove "their theory" is correct. Thus, in recent years we have seen not everyone is to be trusted proving what my professor said is true.
Grandpa ClydeJune 3, 2020
Great article. It is presentations like the one you shared in the article that have been making me crazy for the last three months. All the fear mongering is made even worse when we are told that to be good citizens everyone has to be treated as if they are in one of the hotspots, such as NYC. Would they do the same to NYC if the only hotspots were in WY or UT?
ScottHJune 3, 2020
The real problem is not the math. It's an excessive belief in the power of coercion to provide safety. The question should not be whether elitists of any stripe have good math. It should be whether coercive approaches are superior to liberty. Liberty certainly comes with risks. But I think this article makes it clear that those risks are preferable to the risks of living in a state of fear and coercion. Under liberty, we trust that people (as well as businesses, churches, nursing homes, etc.) have sufficient incentives to sufficiently manage the risks with which we live without excessive coercion. Besides, bad actors in free systems tend to still be bad actors under coercive systems.
Linda S.June 3, 2020
I agree with the author. This whole situation has been entirely blown up and has been fodder for liberalism. I don't agree that this "doctor" is an intelligent person. If so, she would have done much more research than she actually did, if indeed she did any.
Robert W CowartJune 3, 2020
AMEN! AMEN! AND AMEN!!
ADD A COMMENT