Watching Sydney’s Delta cases repeat the early-phase exponential growth of Melbourne, ADSEI’s Linda McIver asks:
Would our collective understanding of covid have been different if we were all more data literate?
Almost certainly, and I’m all for it. But would that avoid
watching Sydney try all of the “can we avoid really seriously locking down” strategies that we know failed us, … like a cinema audience shouting at the screen,
Not necessarily. Probably not, even, but that’s OK. It would still be a huge step forward to acknowledge the data and decide based on costs, values, and uncertainties. I’m fine with Sydney hypothetically saying,
| ❝ | You're right, it's likely exponential, but we can't justify full lockdown until we hit Melbourne's peak. |
I might be more (or less) cautious. I might care more (or less) about the various tradeoffs. I might make a better (or worse) decision were I in charge. That’s Okay. Even with perfect information, values differ.
It’s even fine to be skeptical of data that doesn’t fit my preferred theory. Sometimes Einstein’s right and the data is wrong.
What’s not okay is denying or ignoring the data just because I don’t like the cost of the implied action. Or, funding decades-long FUD campaigns for the same reason.
PS: Here is Linda’s shout suggesting that (only) stage-4 lockdown suppressed Delta:
