I'm struck by the similarities between the 'rona science justifying lockdowns and the whole Global Warming scare. Consider:
- Both rely on unreliable model projections to scare the population. The climate models have been junk for a long time and even the "gold standard" science in the IPCC Assessment Reports shows that the models do not track reality. About Civid: remember the models that showed 2M people would die? Remember how amateurish the model was? But both climate and virus models got big headlines which galvanized policy makers into action.
- Both rely on dodgy data. The Climate data have been fiddled for years and years, to the point that we simply can't tell whether the planet is warming or not. The same with the virus data: first it was deaths from Covid-19, then it was deaths with Covid-19 which added a whole lot more to the death toll (most notoriously a death from a motorcycle accident), and now all the talk is about the number of cases (not the number of deaths) because that's the only number that's going up. Deaths are way, way down and so using a different measuring stick is the only way to keep the scare going.
- Research funding comes from the Government and so there is a bias towards research producing "useful" results - useful to the Government, that is. We've known about the buckets of government funding going towards climate research for a decade or more; there isn't good summary data on Covid funding but we have plenty of anecdotes: field hospitals set up in cities with infection clusters, hospital ships sent various places, virus vaccine funding spread to the four winds, heavy focus on CDC (want to bet what their budget request for next year looks like)?
- Claims that people differing from the "approved" public policy choices are "Science Deniers".