-
Its how maths works, if you can show me using maths how those 2 statements can both be true, go for it. but my issue isn't that. My issue is that there is very little data yet on this virus in the grand scheme of things, so little that the models emerging are indicative at best, and certainly not definitive.
All of this research/analysis is being fed into government, and they are having to make the hardest decisions of their lives, while knowing that the foundations they are working on make quicksand look like granite. At the same time they have to stand in front of cameras every day and show no weakness whatsoever because bad as things are now, this plus major public panic is a hell of a lot worse.
To have major academics then throwing early contradictory versions of their sketchy at best analysis into the public domain, and using it to push their own agendas stinks, whatever the motivation.
And what is the motivation? Get our university on the map world wide? Get my name in the paper, and face on TV starting a successful media career when the smoke clears? It could even be the highly laudable “Get the government to follow my course of action because I’m 100% sure I’m right, and the scientific advice they are following is dangerously wrong”. The reality of the last reason is of course that whatever the government do there will always be top academics who think that way.
You say that’s not how modelling works, I’d say this doesn’t strike me as the way publication of serious scientific research works either.
You are reading a single comment by @Sifta and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Sifta
That’s not how modelling works.