[2006alum]

I do not ascribe to that idea. If you must know, I think the federal response has been abysmally, atrociously, embarrassingly bad.  

But we are talking about a specific issue here, and I do not have to like everything that all leaders in my own party have said or done. Cuomo in particular has struck me as slow-on-the-uptake. Perhaps it was academic and nit-picky, but he also rubbed me the wrong way with his self-righteous refusal to quantify the cost of saving lives. 

This crisis has left me with the overarching, sinking feeling that our system and leaders are poorly equipped to deal with highly quantitative, scientific problems. Hyper-politicization of the issues is one of the very problems that we face.

FWIW, I would largely agree with all of this. The one "both sides" statement I do feel comfortable making is that partisans on both sides are tempted to cherrypick data/results that support their underlying position. I think there's so much we don't know about the virus, about the probable economic fallout, etc., that strong claims of certainty one direction or the other should be greeted with some skepticism. That's part of what has bothered me so much about "the Stanford paper" and basically everything Ioannidis & colleagues have said about their research - they act as if they are so certain they are right that government policy should be made on the basis of their findings when the error bands on their findings would militate for a much less confident answer.

I also know that the one thing that categorically can not be fixed is lives lost - when people die or have permanent lung scarring, there is no way to undo that harm. So all along, I've erred on the side of risking an overreaction than an underreaction, as probably all of you know. But there have been many prudent measures we could have taken and haven't - everything from banning outdoor socially distanced recreation when the best science indicated almost no risk of transmission at a safe distance in the open air - to SF's newest decision to require mask wearing outside at all times. Who came up with that policy? Is there any evidence that someone running down the sidewalk and staying 5-6 feet away from a passing pedestrian who is wearing a mask poses even the slightest risk? I've yet to see one study indicating this, and as you all know, reading about COVID-19 has practically become a part-time job for me.

So I do appreciate how there is a "both sides" aspect to this problem. But I don't think that extends as far as how most people who pick a side tend to behave.

[2006alum]

I do not ascribe to that idea. If you must know, I think the federal response has been abysmally, atrociously, embarrassingly bad.  

But we are talking about a specific issue here, and I do not have to like everything that all leaders in my own party have said or done. Cuomo in particular has struck me as slow-on-the-uptake. Perhaps it was academic and nit-picky, but he also rubbed me the wrong way with his self-righteous refusal to quantify the cost of saving lives. 

This crisis has left me with the overarching, sinking feeling that our system and leaders are poorly equipped to deal with highly quantitative, scientific problems. Hyper-politicization of the issues is one of the very problems that we face.

FWIW, I would largely agree with all of this. The one "both sides" statement I do feel comfortable making is that partisans on both sides are tempted to cherrypick data/results that support their underlying position. I think there's so much we don't know about the virus, about the probable economic fallout, etc., that strong claims of certainty one direction or the other should be greeted with some skepticism. That's part of what has bothered me so much about "the Stanford paper" and basically everything Ioannidis & colleagues have said about their research - they act as if they are so certain they are right that government policy should be made on the basis of their findings when the error bands on their findings would militate for a much less confident answer.

I also know that the one thing that categorically can not be fixed is lives lost - when people die or have permanent lung scarring, there is no way to undo that harm. So all along, I've erred on the side of risking an overreaction than an underreaction, as probably all of you know. But there have been many prudent measures we could have taken and haven't - everything from banning outdoor socially distanced recreation when the best science indicated almost no risk of transmission at a safe distance in the open air - to SF's newest decision to require mask wearing outside at all times. Who came up with that policy? Is there any evidence that someone running down the sidewalk and staying 5-6 feet away from a passing pedestrian who is wearing a mask poses even the slightest risk? I've yet to see one study indicating this, and as you all know, reading about COVID-19 has practically become a part-time job for me.

So I do appreciate how there is a "both sides" aspect to this problem. But I don't think that extends as far as how most people who pick a side tend to behave.