Genuine question, in the full on nuclear war scenario presumably most people wouldn't have food supplies and just starve. Do you expect to be able to protect your food supplies from organized plundering armed gangs? Eg former criminal gangs, or former police/military?
With a full scale nuclear war supply chains will collapse. How will you survive starvation? And if you have enough food or food production capacity, how will you be able to protect it from armed gangs?
Agree that empirical performance is a very important way to assess experts.Unfortunately it can be tricky. In the RCT example, you need expertise to be able to evaluate the RCT. It's not just about knowing about their existence, but also you'd need to be able to eg avoid p-hacking, file-drawer effects and other methodological issues. Especially in a high stakes adversarial landscape like national politics. Joe Biden himself doesn't have enough expertise to assess empirical performance using RCTs. And it's unclear if even any of his advisors can.
Aren't those excess deaths just the direct covid deaths, from the unlucky few younger people who got covid and died from it?
"Sweden has a higher population than the other countries listed so total numbers are not comparable. That alone doesn't explain all the difference."The numbers I'm citing above are population normalized. They are total excess deaths per million (and per 100k in the economist link)."It's unclear to me why https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?tab=map&country=MEX~RUS~ZAF and https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-per-million-covid come to such different conclusions."Ah, that data isn't cumulative. It is just looking at current excess mortality. A lot of Sweden's excess mortality happened early on (I believe, while the other Scandinavian countries were locking down more). So the cumulative number is higher, but not the current number.
Yeah, precisely that page. Scroll down to the graph:"Excess mortality: Cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projection based onprevious years, per million people, Dec 19, 2021
"The cumulative difference between the reported number of deaths since 1 January 2020 and the projected number of deaths for the same period based on previous years."Sweden 883Finland 411Denmark 154Norway 110Iceland 92Proportions are similar if you check out the economist's data below: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?country=OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~USA~IDN~BRAWhere are you getting your numbers?
Yeah, I agree that excess death data is preferable when available. For some reason Dumbledore's Army's original link isn't working for me ("page not found"). So I haven't yet seen state by state excess mortality data. But if it actually doesn't find any difference between the red/blue states that would undermine the argument from the NYT article above.Looking at Our World in Data's limited cumulative excess mortality data Sweden has 2-8X higher excess mortality during the pandemic compared to other Scandinavian countries (with similar vaccination rates). That undermines any simple arguments based on Sweden (other than ones with weaker conclusions - such as that avoiding lockdowns don't 10X+ net covid mortality).Ofc there could be some other explanation for excess Swedish mortality. But an argument against lockdowns based on Sweden as a datapoint would need a pretty solid explanation of this.
Hm. I wonder if there's really a " minimal difference between the outcomes of US red states and blue states". From the graph here it looks like red states had ~40% higher mortality per capita: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/briefing/covid-death-toll-red-america.htmlMaybe that's more from lower vaccination rates, than lockdowns - but it still undermines the argument that´s based on no significant red/blue state differences.
Yeah, it's overconfident to claim that lockdowns are "almost certainly net negative". This stuff is complicated.But it's also not certain that lockdowns were "definitely a huge net positive" for older people. For example, for my 90 year old grandmother the life-saving benefits are much larger than for younger people. But the costs of a couple years in lockdown has also been huge for her. She's been persistently depressed, and her health has deteriorated a lot. Presumably from not moving around much any more. She's felt really bad about life since the pandemic started.Especially given that her statistical risk of dying per year is something like 50% pre-covid, it's not obvious whether this is a good trade-off. It all comes down to details about just how big the mental health costs are and the specific number for mortality reduction from covid.
And if things get bad?