I do not like the way that the experts are dealing with this crisis. I am at the point where I don’t care about being charitable toward them. Nassim Taleb, who is never charitable to those who disagree with him, has a shorthand that I will modify for this purpose. Expert Yet Idiot, or EYI.

1. What should we rely on to make decisions?
   • ASK: rigorous studies and experiments
   • EYI: noisy data and models
2. What should we use to reduce the spread rate of the virus?
   • ASK: masks and scarves
   • EYI: lockdowns
3. What should government do to relieve individuals and small businesses?
   • ASK: provide backing for credit lines from banks
   • EYI: Massive intervention by the Fed and deficit spending

Regarding (1), we need to have an idea of the prevalence of the virus in the population. It is impossible to do this by following the data on reported cases. The amount of testing varies day by day. Different tests are used, with different rates of false positives and false negatives. The lag in reporting results can be anywhere from less than an hour to more than a week. Tests are done on non-representative samples of the population. A rigorous study would use a proper sample design and strive for uniformity in the time and method in which tests are done.

Also, there is no definitive view of how this spreads from one person to another. Experiments would be getter than guesswork.

Models do more harm than good. They rely on data and assumptions that propagate through the model, giving precise-seeming results that are in fact unreliable by orders of magnitude. UPDATE: Peter Attia has a great 8 minute YouTube on this.

For now, the only forecasting method I trust is to extrapolate the growth rate in the number of deaths for a few more weeks. Until today, deaths were doubling very steadily every three days. Today, the ratio of deaths to the total three days ago dropped to 1.86. That is the best number to track until we get something more rigorous to use.

Regarding (2), it seems intuitively plausible that lockdowns will reduce the spread rate. But it also seems intuitively plausible that having everyone use masks and scarves would lower the spread rate. Neither approach will drive the spread rate to zero, but perhaps either approach would stop the phenomenon of the superspreader–one person whose case is such that it infects many people.
The difference between masks/scarves and lockdown is that maybe I could get a haircut. That is if everyone in the barber shop had masks and scarves, and if the barber took unusual measures to clean the chair and his tools.

Regarding (3), if you have not been following this blog, scroll back through previous posts.