We are starting to see things like this paper, which argues the economic cost of lockdowns. The implicit message is that we should be opening up the economy.
A Multi-Risk SIR Model with Optimally Targeted Lockdown
And the news seems to be trying to echo that same message.
For those who praise the Swedish model about herd immunity, herd immunity only works if recovering from infection conveys immunity from future infection, which as of today, the WHO has said is something that has yet to be scientifically proven. Rate of infection is also determined by population density, which is why large and dense cities like New York experience more cases per capita than suburban or rural districts.
Academic papers that use economic modeling to model the effects of COVID-19 are only as good as their assumptions. If a model assumes the wrong infection rate, the wrong fatality rate, or even the wrong assumption about immunity conveyed by infection recovery, that model will not be reflective of the real world. The issue with mathematical models is that it can only take in as many factors as those who design the model incorporate in them, and the real world is full of many other factors for which we do not have a proper understanding of.
Even the agent-based model that I came up with is overly simplistic. It was designed to provide insight into possible patterns, not predict what will happen.
We can all try to make sense of the statistics on our own. But if our interpretation of numbers matter more than the scientists, then why do they spend their lifetimes trying to perfect their skills?
COVID-19 has turned everyone into armchair experts, all thinking we know better than actual experts of this field. But while we are all experts in our own fields, being an expert in economics does not make me an expert in infection science. To think we know better than the experts is hubris, and hubris has been known to lead to downfall.
By the way, I think crises like COVID-19 highlight the need for interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary expertise. A pity that most people, to be experts in one field, are usually unable to devote the time to become an expert in another field enough for us to produce such experts. Maybe we need a group of experts whose only expertise is being able to bring together experts in other fields and integrate their expertise into something that can deal with the overall situation, which usually spans various fields.
Oh wait, we do have such experts. They are called leaders.
A Multi-Risk SIR Model with Optimally Targeted Lockdown
And the news seems to be trying to echo that same message.
For those who praise the Swedish model about herd immunity, herd immunity only works if recovering from infection conveys immunity from future infection, which as of today, the WHO has said is something that has yet to be scientifically proven. Rate of infection is also determined by population density, which is why large and dense cities like New York experience more cases per capita than suburban or rural districts.
Academic papers that use economic modeling to model the effects of COVID-19 are only as good as their assumptions. If a model assumes the wrong infection rate, the wrong fatality rate, or even the wrong assumption about immunity conveyed by infection recovery, that model will not be reflective of the real world. The issue with mathematical models is that it can only take in as many factors as those who design the model incorporate in them, and the real world is full of many other factors for which we do not have a proper understanding of.
Even the agent-based model that I came up with is overly simplistic. It was designed to provide insight into possible patterns, not predict what will happen.
We can all try to make sense of the statistics on our own. But if our interpretation of numbers matter more than the scientists, then why do they spend their lifetimes trying to perfect their skills?
COVID-19 has turned everyone into armchair experts, all thinking we know better than actual experts of this field. But while we are all experts in our own fields, being an expert in economics does not make me an expert in infection science. To think we know better than the experts is hubris, and hubris has been known to lead to downfall.
By the way, I think crises like COVID-19 highlight the need for interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary expertise. A pity that most people, to be experts in one field, are usually unable to devote the time to become an expert in another field enough for us to produce such experts. Maybe we need a group of experts whose only expertise is being able to bring together experts in other fields and integrate their expertise into something that can deal with the overall situation, which usually spans various fields.
Oh wait, we do have such experts. They are called leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment