From The Most Science Minded Guy here

[Spock]

I didn't want this to get lost in the Texas thread. It deserves front and center treatment.

Apparently, when Bob# (supposedly, the most science minded guy here) disagrees with a scientist-no matter how impressive his credentials-that scientist is a partisan hack. While, apparently,the scientists he agrees with are as pure as the wind-driven snow.

Bob#'s>>>"hat's exactly right. The letters that back up their opinions with evidence and analysis matter. The ones that parrot political conclusions that are contrary to the evidence and aren't based on analysis do not."<<<

I am taking it as a given that the body of research that this impressive group of scholars has performed over the years supports their signing of the letter. Or is that just an ignorant, Trump-voting Minnesota farmer talking?

This post references the scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration.

https://gbdeclaration.org/

I didn't realize that when scientists disagree the one they disagree with are explained away as partisan hacks.

[earendel]

I think it is worth pointing out that just because someone is an expert in one scientific field doesn't mean that he or she is an expert in other fields. A Nobel Prize-winning chemist may know next to nothing about economics, for instance.

[Spock]

I think it is worth pointing out that just because someone is an expert in one scientific field doesn't mean that he or she is an expert in other fields. A Nobel Prize-winning chemist may know next to nothing about economics, for instance.

In other words, scientists that you may disagree with are blinkered and not capable of incorporating wider research into their thinking.

Yes, that was a bit snarky, but to be serious with someone I respect, the scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration are actually looking at the bigger picture. Ie-How is children's mental health affected by isolation? etc etc. They are in favor of treating the whole patient-if you will.

I submit that those in favor of lockdowns and restrictions are the blinkered ones and they view Covid as the only physical and mental health issue out there and they completely ignore any negative aspects of the shutdowns.

[earendel]

I think it is worth pointing out that just because someone is an expert in one scientific field doesn't mean that he or she is an expert in other fields. A Nobel Prize-winning chemist may know next to nothing about economics, for instance.

In other words, scientists that you may disagree with are blinkered and not capable of incorporating wider research into their thinking.

I'm not taking sides in this controversy. I'm just saying that expertise in one field doesn't necessarily imply expertise in another. And for any signed document, there's no way to know if those who signed it did anything more than just a cursory reading. Scientists are as capable of bias as anyone else, the same is true for intelligence experts.

Yes, that was a bit snarky, but to be serious with someone I respect, the scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration are actually looking at the bigger picture. Ie-How is children's mental health affected by isolation? etc etc. They are in favor of treating the whole patient-if you will.

Again, how can you be sure that those who signed "are actually looking at the bigger picture"? I'd like to think they did, but that's a belief, not a fact.

I submit that those in favor of lockdowns and restrictions are the blinkered ones and they view Covid as the only physical and mental health issue out there and they completely ignore any negative aspects of the shutdowns.

And I would say that those who want to "open up" the country are ignoring the real health issues that COVID can cause. Everyone comes to this issue from their own perspective and I don't think that there is necessarily a "one size fits all" solution short of a reliable, safe vaccine.