Edoardo Carlesi, PhD, returns to The Pat Flynn Show to discuss the ineffectiveness of various COVID restrictions (particularly lockdowns) and dangers of politicized science.
Contra Lockdowns with Dr. Edoardo Carlesi
About Edoardo Carlesi
Astrophysics PhD, machine learning specialist, bassplayer and polyglot from Rome, Italy. For more info, click here.
A Few Summary Points Against COVID Restrictions
“Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate,”
Source: Frontiers in Public Health Study
The case against certain COVID restrictions can be made very simply based off degree of expectation. (Note, however, that there has been considerable published research arguing against the effectiveness of various COVID restrictions, a brief overview of which can be found here.) If one assumes some hypothesis to be true, it can be reasonably asked what is expected from said hypothesis. For example, if I hypothesize that lockdowns (or masks, etc) are effective at controlling the spread and damage of COVID, then I should expect to see differences in places where lockdowns (or masks, etc) are enacted versus where they are not. Granted, comparisons can be difficult, especially since we don’t have a counterfactual crystal ball, but we do have close enough comparisons that can be made in regions of relative similarity where it should not be difficult to gather data either for or against said hypothesis.
The point is easy for any non-specialist to understand. If these restrictive measures were SO important/effective – that is, to the extent of spending billions of dollars and suppressing people’s otherwise fundamental rights, including rights to work, gather, worship, etc —we should see them reflect strongly, obviously, and relatively quickly in the data. That our hypothesis would have us expect (x) and that our real-world data has us finding not-(x) counts strongly against the pro-lockdown (and pro-mask) hypothesis.
Finally, let us remember this: Those who impose burdens have the burden of proof. It should not be on me, you, or anybody else to prove that these restrictions DO NOT WORK, because we are not asking people to stop working, stop seeing friends and family, stop worshipping, stop living, essentially. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who impose such radical, life-degrading restrictions to prove to US that they not only DO work but are necessary in the circumstances, given how much these restrictions take away. Do not allow the burden of proof to be unfairly shifted. (That said, it should be obvious that no such burden of proof has ever come close to being met).
Below I post a series of charts (helpfully compiled by @ianmsc and statistician Matt Briggs) that I believe tells the story everybody needs to know. While viewing, ask yourself: Do I see what I would EXPECT if these restrictions were as effective/important as they’ve been advertised to be?
Considering Objections.
Objection. But these regions are different.
Response. Granted, but they aren’t so different (in terms of demographics, population density, etc) to accommodate for the LACK of differences between what we would expect if – if, if, if! – the pro-lockdown/pro-mask hypothesis were true. Also note that even WITHIN the same region (Michigan, for example) we do not see what is reasonably expected once particular restrictions go into place but rather often see the opposite. A thought experiment: If you removed the markers of when various restrictions went into place, how many people — expert or otherwise — would be able to accurately identify when/where they went in? Again, given how effective these restrictive measures are claimed to be, this should not be an unreasonable assignment. But obviously nobody is going to score well on that assignment: they would have literally no idea. Again, this counts strongly against the pro-lockdown/mask hypothesis.
Finally, while anybody can cherry pick data to fit their hypothesis, any hypothesis worthy of the name must have criteria for falsification, and here the picture cannot be clearer: the overwhelming data we have consistently strikes against the pro-lockdown/pro-mask hypothesis. We not only do not find what we would expect if the hypothesis were true, but we consistently find what we would expect if the hypothesis were not true – that is, little to no meaningful/significant difference in places of strict lockdowns/mask mandates versus those without. Ironically, in many cases, places with more strict lockdowns/mask mandates are fairing worse than those without.
Objection. But people aren’t compliant.
Response. First, by the very fact that so many states/countries have prevented enormous amounts of interactions between people (major sporting events, concerts, fairs, pubs, restaurants, etc) EVEN IF people were otherwise non-compliant apart from that, we would still expect to see significant differences… and yet, we do not. What’s more, compliance is extremely high in many areas – honestly, as high as anybody could reasonably expect – with respect to lockdowns and mask mandates and still we do not see the expected differences but many times the opposite.
Objection. COVID is a seriously deadly disease which has killed many people. How can you be so heartless?
Response. Imagine this. A friend is diagnosed with cancer. But instead of seeking treatment with credible scientific backing they begin shelling out their money to a witchdoctor who entices them to treat their condition with essential oils. You, being their friend, and concerned about their wellbeing, advise them against this approach. Not only do you believe the proposed treatment is ineffective, but positively harmful in other ways, including (if nothing else) to their financial status. Notice that nothing about your criticism denies the seriousness of their cancer diagnosis nor does it imply that deaths by cancer are not a tragedy. Mutatis mutandis with COVID restrictions. Nothing about criticizing COVID restrictions and exposing their ineffectiveness implies an indifference toward those who have suffered or died from this disease. An ineffective policy is an ineffective policy, full stop, and has nothing to do with how serious or deadly COVID is. The objection is irrelevant.
Related Episodes
COVID-19, The Presidential Election, and How to NOT Be Fooled By Statistics with Dr. Matt Briggs