To: arun gera who wrote (163941 ) 10/19/2020 4:25:43 PM From: sense 1 RecommendationRecommended By pak73
Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218554 I don't see any jurisdictions that I think did "a really good job"... Although, not having just looked at the data, I'd say the top of the list would include South Korea, Japan and New Zealand... as long as you don't include the debacle of the cruise ship incident in a non-numerical analysis re Japan's choices. There is zero utility... and science, being inherently amoral, should ONLY focus on utility... in addressing "report cards" for the performance of any jurisdiction, or its politicians... without addressing the REASONS for the differences in outcomes, given the different choices that were made. Where one choice led to better outcomes than another choice made elsewhere... that's worth looking at... in an analysis of choices. Where the obvious goal of the effort made is to arrive at "you suck" as the "result" in an end point ? LOL!!! The politicians, everywhere, were all mostly stupid about science. None of them were capable of making proper decisions without reliance upon others, as experts... making it pretty stupid, now, in any venue where the experts advice was followed, to blame the politicians... and not the experts ? That the discussion is held at all... in the way it is... proves its political purpose... is not a legitimate purpose. Strange... that I don't see any studies being conducted in the wake of the early failures to address the pandemic properly.... considering what science might do, now and in future, to enable others in doing a better job in overcoming normalcy bias ? The initial responses, everywhere , looked like the Keystone Cops... How much effort do you see being made... to fix that ?