How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[Bloop Bloop]

Well, I don't know that I'd judge QALY based on whether someone is a criminal or a primary carer or whatever. But it would be good to know comorbidity info at least.

And it would be good also to have suburb-by-suburb breakdowns so we can better understand and assess things like:

Like this data?

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODBmMmE3NWQtZWNlNC00OWRkLTk1NjYtMjM2YTY1MjI2NzdjIiwidCI6ImMwZTA2MDFmLTBmYWMtNDQ5Yy05Yzg4LWExMDRjNGViOWYyOCJ9

Thanks, I just looked at the drill down suburb numbers.

Truganina has 400+ active cases right now. It's in the west of Melbourne. Some of the residential suburbs in the east of Melbourne have 0-2 active cases right now. I can understand the whole city being locked down for 2-3 weeks for numbers to stabilise. But we really should be setting up a rolling thaw that starts with the eastern suburbs where there are a lot fewer cases and then slowly goes west. Sort of like the reverse of what we did with this lockdown, when it started first in the NW suburbs.

I'm surprised the geographical issue isn't being talked about, more. Frankly, there are a lot of uncomfortable social issues that seem to be getting swept under the rug:
- The disparity between suburbs in covid cases
- The role of religious celebrations in causing, or exacerbating, the second wave

We may hear more from today's enquiry. I think it's important we call a spade a spade.

[HBFIRE]

Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic 


U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19. Younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and unpaid adult caregivers reported having experienced disproportionately worse mental health outcomes, increased substance use, and elevated suicidal ideation.

It's as I stated before, the poor/disadvantaged/marginalized/younger adults with less resources are getting hit the hardest. Supporting mandatory mass lockdowns is a selfish privilege of the entitled who can comfortably "shelter" in their work-from-home middle-class bubbles enabled by Amazon Prime and Uber. Apparently, the poor, marginalized, and younger generations don't matter as much as the wealthy.

[Kris]

Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic 


U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19. Younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and unpaid adult caregivers reported having experienced disproportionately worse mental health outcomes, increased substance use, and elevated suicidal ideation.

It's as I stated before, the poor/disadvantaged/marginalized/younger adults with less resources are getting hit the hardest. Supporting mandatory mass lockdowns is a selfish privilege of the entitled who can comfortably "shelter" in their work-from-home middle-class bubbles enabled by Amazon Prime and Uber. Apparently, the poor, marginalized, and younger generations don't matter as much as the wealthy.

Not to Republicans, anyway. Democrats have been trying to increase financial assistance and health care access to those populations since the beginning, but their efforts have been blocked.

[HBFIRE]

Not to Republicans, anyway. Democrats have been trying to increase financial assistance and health care access to those populations since the beginning, but their efforts have been blocked.

I don't think the point I'm making above is political, but this is definitely not the case.  Both sides have been pushing for relief bills, it's just that one side is trying to also mix in additional bills simultaneously. 

[Bloop Bloop]

Unfortunately the enquiry has shed little light.

We now know that genomic sequencing suggests that 90% of all second wave cases can be linked to a single outbreak at a quarantine hotel where 1 staff member and 2 security guards (contractors) caught the virus from an overseas returning family.

But due to "privacy concerns" we're not being told how exactly the 3 infected spread the virus so widely. At least one of them must have been a super-spreader.

I'm sure someone knows, but the government department responsible (Department of Health and Human Services) is trying to stifle that knowledge from disseminating. Would it kill them to simply say "two security guards passed it onto their families at a religious celebration"? That is the rumour. Or if the rumour is false, by all means refute it.

[Kris]

Not to Republicans, anyway. Democrats have been trying to increase financial assistance and health care access to those populations since the beginning, but their efforts have been blocked.

I don't think the point I'm making above is political, but this is definitely not the case.  Both sides have been pushing for relief bills, it's just that one side is trying to also mix in additional bills simultaneously.

The point you were making was political, given your blame on “lockdowns” and therefore those who propose them. And this response is partisan and slanted, as well.

[HBFIRE]

The point you were making was political, given your blame on “lockdowns” and therefore those who propose them. And this response is partisan and slanted, as well.

I don't consider the issue of lockdowns versus no lockdowns as a political one -- it shouldn't be at least.  I know it's been turned into a partisan issue and that's part of the problem.  This is why I avoided mentioning political positions.  One should be able to have an opinion on either side of this issue regardless of political affiliation.  For what it's worth, I lean more libertarian.

[Kris]

The point you were making was political, given your blame on “lockdowns” and therefore those who propose them. And this response is partisan and slanted, as well.

I don't consider the issue of lockdowns versus no lockdowns as a political one -- it shouldn't be at least.  I know it's been turned into a partisan issue and that's part of the problem.  This is why I avoided mentioning political positions.  One should be able to have an opinion on either side of this issue regardless of political affiliation.  For what it's worth, I lean more libertarian.

Yes, well. Libertarian “both-sides-ism” is what I sensed from your second comment.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Of course the problem in USA is you didn't really lock down enough or for long enough in many regions. Further, the messaging from gov't wasn't consistent or strong enough. You'd be over the worst of it months ago (at least first wave) if you watched how other countries handled things....but that's not the American Way. And so here you are with way too many deaths AND a hit to the economy.

I respectfully disagree. With perfect 20/20 hindsight of course, the problem as I see it was an early over-reaction in most places in the US which undermined credibility. This combined with a completely inept response at the National and most states level that’s continuing on with an utter failure to consider American culture in crafting a response. Americans just don’t do obedience well. And once it became a political issue, we were pretty much screwed.

COVID has gone from being a problem in the US to being a dilemma. A lot of armchair warriors are suggesting all sorts of plans that will fail for lack of observance. There is no solution that will actually work that I’ve seen. So WYSIWYG.

[Bloop Bloop]

The thing is though, Americans have continued to enjoy a lot of civic liberties which those in Asia and Australasia have given up.

I can't see many Americans agreeing to a 5km (3 mile) travel radius restriction, a complete ban on leaving home to do any work, or a curfew starting at 8pm. That's the Melbourne response. The US values its freedoms too much. I can definitely see that point of view, too, and empathise with it.

[Kyle Schuant]

Of interest, this guy has plotted our cases in Victoria. As you can see from the graph, given the two week lag between measures brought in or lifted and a change in new cases, stage 3 plus masks brought numbers down; stage 4 has not yet shown any difference.

He also estimates that the measures have saved 1,133 lives.

https://tao.asvo.org.au/covidanalytics/static/staging/plot_new_cases.html

The ABC using ABS statistics tells us that the lockdown is killing about 400 people a month. And so over the 3 months of the graph showing 1,133 lives saved from covid, we will have 1,200 deaths from untreated diabetes and dementia, etc.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-23/coronavirus-australia-excess-deaths-data-analysis/12321162

That's an awful lot of running just to stay still.

[Paper Chaser]

Related to American willingness to fall in line or give everybody the finger, many contact tracing workers are (predictably) reporting uncooperative people in more than half of their cases:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/08/14/902271822/13-states-make-contact-tracing-data-public-heres-what-they-re-learning

[deborah]

Of interest, this guy has plotted our cases in Victoria. As you can see from the graph, given the two week lag between measures brought in or lifted and a change in new cases, stage 3 plus masks brought numbers down; stage 4 has not yet shown any difference.

He also estimates that the measures have saved 1,133 lives.

https://tao.asvo.org.au/covidanalytics/static/staging/plot_new_cases.html

The ABC using ABS statistics tells us that the lockdown is killing about 400 people a month. And so over the 3 months of the graph showing 1,133 lives saved from covid, we will have 1,200 deaths from untreated diabetes and dementia, etc.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-23/coronavirus-australia-excess-deaths-data-analysis/12321162

That's an awful lot of running just to stay still.

The ABC graphs for Australia are quite interesting. The abnormal deaths before covid19 occurred in the states and territories where there were high levels of smoke at that time of the year. I’d be surprised if the ABC graphs weren’t showing the fire/smoke/abnormally high temperature excess deaths. Although it wasn’t reported, NT had more fires than usual as well as the eastern states. Since 80% of Namadgi National Park was burnt, and it’s about 80% of the ACT, and the ACT was getting the highest air pollution levels in the world when the nearby NSW fires were burning, the higher levels of unexpected deaths there than in other jurisdictions are also consistent.

From the covid19 graph you give, I would say the stage 4 lockdown has been effective, and that appears to be the conclusion he’s drawn. What aren’t I seeing?

[Kyle Schuant]

There were indeed excess deaths due to bushfire smoke in Australia, a parliamentary enquiry was told it was about 400 people in all - in January and February. So it precedes covid/lockdown effects.

Someone infected today will take 4-7 days to show symptoms, another 1-3 days to get tested, and 1-3 days (up to 10) to get results. Thus the standard has become that any new restriction introduced, or any restriction lifted, it'll take us 14 days to see if it had any effect on case numbers. So if something is introduced today August 18th, it's not going to help someone who was infected last week.

Looking at the graph, take the measures and shift them two weeks to the right, and you can see which had what effects.

In the first surge of cases, quarantining international arrivals had the single biggest effect, and after that stage 2 restrictions - no big wedding, football games, etc. Stopping people going to playgrounds or cafes etc had no effect, because the caseload was so small - if even 1% were infected (which would be 64,000 people in Victoria) that'd mean a few visiting a McDs each day and possibly passing it on, but it was more like 1 in 10,000, so the restrictions after stage 2 did nothing.

In the second surge of cases, the numbers of people infected and out in the community were higher, and so tighter restrictions such as closing cafes could have an effect. And that's why we see that stage 3 and wearing masks caused the cases to drop. Stage 4's effects, if any, will be shown in the next week or so.

However, the caveat to both stages 3 and 4 in this case is that the cases were mostly confined to a few workplaces. The ABC link below gives a nice graphic of the clusters.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/coronavirus-cases-data-reveals-how-covid-19-spreads-in-australia/12060704?nw=0

They're in healthcare, aged care, meatworks and warehousing, and a little bit in schools. Apart from closing the schools, the general restrictions of stages 3 and 4 didn't affect these places at all. However, some targeted measures such as PPE for abattoir workers and reducing staffing in meatworks and warehousing, along with restricting aged care staff to working at one facility, have slowed things down.

That said, the virus is simply burning though victims - if you shut down a workplace with 60 out of the 100 people infected and make them isolate themselves, you only expect at most another 200 or so cases from it - the other 40 staff, and the households of all 100. So it may not be stages 3 and 4 at all, it may simply be that we're identifying where there are outbreaks and containing them.

Long-term, that's what we need to do: get good at containing outbreaks. Doing what Taiwan etc did from day one: test, treat, track and trace. This is a useful thing whether we have lockdowns or not, because that way old Gladys might die, but Maeve doesn't. Currently they're both dying. But they're not dying because someone goes for doughnuts at 9pm or cycles for 65 minutes rather than 60.

But just looking at the graph, what you should get from it is that stage 3 gave us a decline in cases. Now, stage 4 may give us a more rapid decline, but I doubt it because it doesn't affect the places where the infections are actually happening. Which is why CHO Sutton rejected it on July 25th. Unfortunately, a politician is in charge, not Sutton.

[deborah]

I was tested, and got results the same day. My mother is in Victoria, and she got tested and had results the same day too. There’s also testing of contacts. As a result, I would be pretty surprised if it was taking as long as 14 days before measures were having an impact. There ARE stories about results taking a while, but the media tend to highlight outliers.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Not to Republicans, anyway. Democrats have been trying to increase financial assistance and health care access to those populations since the beginning, but their efforts have been blocked.

I don't think the point I'm making above is political, but this is definitely not the case.  Both sides have been pushing for relief bills, it's just that one side is trying to also mix in additional bills simultaneously.

The problem has become political because, statistically speaking, Democrats have been unable to acknowledge the basic facts about the virus, while Republicans have not listened to the expert's advice.

So on the left, Democrats want over-draconian policies because they do not understand how the virus works and who it affects.  On the right, we have people who won't even do the basics.

So we are stuck in an endless tug-of-war where nobody can agree on anything.

https://www.franklintempletonnordic.com/investor/article?contentPath=html/ftthinks/common/cio-views/on-my-mind-they-blinded-us-from-science.html

[Kyle Schuant]

I would be pretty surprised if it was taking as long as 14 days before measures were having an impact.

You can be surprised, but that's the fact, it's the measure used internationally and here. It's also the reason for the 14 days of quarantine - if you were infected even a moment before you entered quarantined, if you were ever going to show symptoms it'd be by 14 days.

https://www.health.gov.au/news/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahppc-coronavirus-covid-19-statements-on-14-may-2020

In principle you might be asymptomatic but still contagious after 14 days, and this is the reason that more recently if the person refuses a test they stay in quarantine/isolation for another 10 days to allow any infection to be cleared from their system.

Thus, any measures introduced or removed will take 14 days to show an effect on daily case numbers, if any. Stage 3 and masks have got us the numbers we have today. Stage 4 may or may not make a difference.

The most comparable restrictions as seen in NZ (they banned takeaway, we allow it, they allowed a single home visitor, we don't, etc) to our stage 4 gave them the same infection and death rate as we saw over the same period with our stage 3 restrictions earlier in the year. If measures beyond our stage 3 made no difference to NZ then, I don't see why they'd make a difference to us now.

Again, that's the advice from the experts involved (as opposed to the academic commentary experts, or random idiots like me). It takes 14 days. Which means stage 3 and masks worked, and stage 4 has not yet had a chance to show any effect. I doubt it will, but I also doubt anyone prominent will admit that. "I took an aspirin and wore a tinfoil hat, and my headache is gone. You can't prove the tinfoil hat didn't work!" And that's really been a problem whenever we've introduced or removed measures: we did a whole bunch of things at once or close together, and we didn't wait long enough to see if they'd have an effect or not.

[GuitarStv]

Not to Republicans, anyway. Democrats have been trying to increase financial assistance and health care access to those populations since the beginning, but their efforts have been blocked.

I don't think the point I'm making above is political, but this is definitely not the case.  Both sides have been pushing for relief bills, it's just that one side is trying to also mix in additional bills simultaneously.

The problem has become political because, statistically speaking, Democrats have been unable to acknowledge the basic facts about the virus, while Republicans have not listened to the expert's advice.

So on the left, Democrats want over-draconian policies because they do not understand how the virus works and who it affects.  On the right, we have people who won't even do the basics.

So we are stuck in an endless tug-of-war where nobody can agree on anything.

https://www.franklintempletonnordic.com/investor/article?contentPath=html/ftthinks/common/cio-views/on-my-mind-they-blinded-us-from-science.html

Interesting.  Can you describe what you see as the unacknowledged basic facts about the virus, and over-draconian policies that the Democrats are attempting?

[former player]

I would be pretty surprised if it was taking as long as 14 days before measures were having an impact.

You can be surprised, but that's the fact, it's the measure used internationally and here. It's also the reason for the 14 days of quarantine - if you were infected even a moment before you entered quarantined, if you were ever going to show symptoms it'd be by 14 days.

https://www.health.gov.au/news/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahppc-coronavirus-covid-19-statements-on-14-may-2020

In principle you might be asymptomatic but still contagious after 14 days, and this is the reason that more recently if the person refuses a test they stay in quarantine/isolation for another 10 days to allow any infection to be cleared from their system.

Thus, any measures introduced or removed will take 14 days to show an effect on daily case numbers, if any. Stage 3 and masks have got us the numbers we have today. Stage 4 may or may not make a difference.

The most comparable restrictions as seen in NZ (they banned takeaway, we allow it, they allowed a single home visitor, we don't, etc) to our stage 4 gave them the same infection and death rate as we saw over the same period with our stage 3 restrictions earlier in the year. If measures beyond our stage 3 made no difference to NZ then, I don't see why they'd make a difference to us now.

Again, that's the advice from the experts involved (as opposed to the academic commentary experts, or random idiots like me). It takes 14 days. Which means stage 3 and masks worked, and stage 4 has not yet had a chance to show any effect. I doubt it will, but I also doubt anyone prominent will admit that. "I took an aspirin and wore a tinfoil hat, and my headache is gone. You can't prove the tinfoil hat didn't work!" And that's really been a problem whenever we've introduced or removed measures: we did a whole bunch of things at once or close together, and we didn't wait long enough to see if they'd have an effect or not.

There is a difference between something having an impact (the point deborah was making) and something being demonstrated to have an impact (the point you were making).  The differential between the two works both ways: things get worse before it can be demonstrated that they are getting worse and things get better before they can be demonstrated to be getting better.

It helps a discussion if a point based on one modality is not given an attempt at an answer based on a different modality.

[OtherJen]

Not to Republicans, anyway. Democrats have been trying to increase financial assistance and health care access to those populations since the beginning, but their efforts have been blocked.

I don't think the point I'm making above is political, but this is definitely not the case.  Both sides have been pushing for relief bills, it's just that one side is trying to also mix in additional bills simultaneously.

The problem has become political because, statistically speaking, Democrats have been unable to acknowledge the basic facts about the virus, while Republicans have not listened to the expert's advice.

So on the left, Democrats want over-draconian policies because they do not understand how the virus works and who it affects.  On the right, we have people who won't even do the basics.

So we are stuck in an endless tug-of-war where nobody can agree on anything.

https://www.franklintempletonnordic.com/investor/article?contentPath=html/ftthinks/common/cio-views/on-my-mind-they-blinded-us-from-science.html

I'm curious: which facts about the virus do you think the Democrats do not understand?

I'd prefer peer-reviewed sources from actual clinicians, epidemiologists, and/or biomed scientists rather than an opinion blog from the CIO of a financial company whose entire academic and professional career has been in the field of economics.

[Buffaloski Boris]

I'm curious: which facts about the virus do you think the Democrats do not understand?

I'd prefer peer-reviewed sources from actual clinicians, epidemiologists, and/or biomed scientists rather than an opinion blog from the CIO of a financial company whose entire academic and professional career has been in the field of economics.

LOL. I think you answered your own question with your preference for clinicians, epidemiologists and biomed scientists. All of those scientists have an important role BUT you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists to figure out how to approach the issue. The proferred solution used by other countries of long term lockdowns haven’t worked in the US and aren’t going to. We can wish all we want that people will abide by them, but they won’t. So given a disobedient population that distrusts many experts and often detests their political leadership, how do you fight a pandemic? The medical field can’t really answer that question because a lot of the underlying issues are outside of their technical expertise.

[OtherJen]

I'm curious: which facts about the virus do you think the Democrats do not understand?

I'd prefer peer-reviewed sources from actual clinicians, epidemiologists, and/or biomed scientists rather than an opinion blog from the CIO of a financial company whose entire academic and professional career has been in the field of economics.

LOL. I think you answered your own question with your preference for clinicians, epidemiologists and biomed scientists. All of those scientists have an important role BUT you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists to figure out how to approach the issue. The proferred solution used by other countries of long term lockdowns haven’t worked in the US and aren’t going to. We can wish all we want that people will abide by them, but they won’t. So given a disobedient population that distrusts many experts and often detests their political leadership, how do you fight a pandemic? The medical field can’t really answer that question because a lot of the underlying issues are outside of their technical expertise.

The poster specifically said "about the virus," not the socioeconomic issues related to the virus. Neither of you have answered my question sufficiently.

[GuitarStv]

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

[bloodaxe]

Not to Republicans, anyway. Democrats have been trying to increase financial assistance and health care access to those populations since the beginning, but their efforts have been blocked.

I don't think the point I'm making above is political, but this is definitely not the case.  Both sides have been pushing for relief bills, it's just that one side is trying to also mix in additional bills simultaneously.

The problem has become political because, statistically speaking, Democrats have been unable to acknowledge the basic facts about the virus, while Republicans have not listened to the expert's advice.

So on the left, Democrats want over-draconian policies because they do not understand how the virus works and who it affects.  On the right, we have people who won't even do the basics.

So we are stuck in an endless tug-of-war where nobody can agree on anything.

https://www.franklintempletonnordic.com/investor/article?contentPath=html/ftthinks/common/cio-views/on-my-mind-they-blinded-us-from-science.html

I'm curious: which facts about the virus do you think the Democrats do not understand?

I'd prefer peer-reviewed sources from actual clinicians, epidemiologists, and/or biomed scientists rather than an opinion blog from the CIO of a financial company whose entire academic and professional career has been in the field of economics.

I think Democrats, and most Americans, understand how to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

Perhaps the parent comment meant the well-intended but unhelpful restrictions Democrats are placing on citizens?

Republicans are guilty of this too, but here are a couple examples from Democrats I found in 10 minutes of googling:

1:
Attempting to ban E Cigarettes: https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/fda-e-cigarette-ban-coronavirus-pandemic?cmpid=prn_investors.
Based on questionable research. The paper said that smoking or vaping in the past 30 days presents lower risks then not smoking if you have ever smoked before. Also, why ban E cigarettes instead of cigarettes?

Quote from paper:
"People with a history of smoking (but not vaping) were 2.3 times as likely to have tested positive for COVID-19, while the risk ratio for people who had smoked in the previous 30 days was 1.5."

Link to paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X20303992

2:
Only allowing to go alcohol if and only if food is sold with it. This is happening in Massachusetts and New York.
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/restaurants/2020/06/26/to-go-cocktails-might-save-mass/
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2020/07/17/bars-new-york-need-sell-food-serve-booze-what-know/5458017002/

I can't find any study that says alcohol increases risk of coronavirus if not paired with food.

[Michael in ABQ]

My kids went back to school in person for the first time yesterday. Huge positive change in attitude and behavior last night. Instead of the constant complaining and criticism and whining that's developed from months of being isolated they were all in much better moods and nicer to one another. They're happy to be back in school and see friends and just get to interact with someone outside their immediate family for the first time in months.

The downside is we've cut off personal contact with my in-laws who had been able to see my wife and our kids since they'd all quarantined together and maintained a safe bubble. They're in their 70s and we all agreed not to take the risk until a vaccine is developed. Now that the kids are back in school we've gone shopping in person for the first time since March as well.

There's about 40 cases per day in the metro area of 800k, so about 5 per 100,000. Their school is pretty small with less than 100 students and faculty. The odds of one of those cases being someone in their school, let alone in their particular class, are a risk we're willing to take.

[scottish]

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

[NotJen]

Republicans are guilty of this too, but here are a couple examples from Democrats I found in 10 minutes of googling:

2:
Only allowing to go alcohol if and only if food is sold with it. This is happening in Massachusetts and New York.
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/restaurants/2020/06/26/to-go-cocktails-might-save-mass/
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2020/07/17/bars-new-york-need-sell-food-serve-booze-what-know/5458017002/

I can't find any study that says alcohol increases risk of coronavirus if not paired with food.

It's not about being paired with food (which I think you know that no one is saying that it is) - it's just a convenient way to limit alcohol sales.  Which is a thing we've been doing since forever.

The NY article says it's to prevent close mingling (seems legit - we know close prolonged contact does increase your risk).  Also, this article is not related to to-go alcohol as mentioned in your comment.

In other places, it's likely related to local alcohol licensing and sales issues.  In some places, there are laws related to "restaurants" vs "bars" - in pre-pandemic times, I've been to places that would not serve alcohol unless food was purchased.  There are also limits on how much alcohol you can purchase in a day (again, pre-pandemic), and carryover of those kinds of rules to new to-go laws has nothing to do with the virus.

In my state, to-go alcohol is not a thing.  Alcohol is for on-premise consumption at bars or restaurants.  My state is temporarily allowing to-go and curbside alcohol sales because it's safer than on-site consumption, and helps sustain that part of the economy.  I'm in a red state, and even we now have a curfew for last call at bars.  I don't think Democrats have a monopoly on alcohol-related restrictions during the pandemic.

[bloodaxe]

Republicans are guilty of this too, but here are a couple examples from Democrats I found in 10 minutes of googling:

2:
Only allowing to go alcohol if and only if food is sold with it. This is happening in Massachusetts and New York.
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/restaurants/2020/06/26/to-go-cocktails-might-save-mass/
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2020/07/17/bars-new-york-need-sell-food-serve-booze-what-know/5458017002/

I can't find any study that says alcohol increases risk of coronavirus if not paired with food.

It's not about being paired with food (which I think you know that no one is saying that it is) - it's just a convenient way to limit alcohol sales.  Which is a thing we've been doing since forever.

Mass and NY weren't required to sell food with alcohol before. Why now? Is this helping reduce the spread of coronavirus?

The NY article says it's to prevent close mingling (seems legit - we know close prolonged contact does increase your risk).  Also, this article is not related to to-go alcohol as mentioned in your comment.

Why open bars at all if the goal is to reduce close mingling? I'm not convinced that requiring food + alcohol instead of just alcohol will having a significant reduction in cases. Sorry, only the Massachusetts article is related to to go orders.

In other places, it's likely related to local alcohol licensing and sales issues.  In some places, there are laws related to "restaurants" vs "bars" - in pre-pandemic times, I've been to places that would not serve alcohol unless food was purchased.  There are also limits on how much alcohol you can purchase in a day (again, pre-pandemic), and carryover of those kinds of rules to new to-go laws has nothing to do with the virus.

Again, this wasn't the law in Mass or NY before. Why make it now? Is it reducing the spread of coronavirus?

In my state, to-go alcohol is not a thing.  Alcohol is for on-premise consumption at bars or restaurants.  My state is temporarily allowing to-go and curbside alcohol sales because it's safer than on-site consumption, and helps sustain that part of the economy.  I'm in a red state, and even we now have a curfew for last call at bars.  I don't think Democrats have a monopoly on alcohol-related restrictions during the pandemic.

I agree, Democrats and Republicans both are making silly restrictions. The parent comment asked for Democrat instances though.

[GuitarStv]

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

[NotJen]

Mass and NY weren't required to sell food with alcohol before. Why now? Is this helping reduce the spread of coronavirus?
Why open bars at all if the goal is to reduce close mingling? I'm not convinced that requiring food + alcohol instead of just alcohol will having a significant reduction in cases. Sorry, only the Massachusetts article is related to to go orders.

I don't know if it is working as intended, but theoretically, yes, it will help with the spread of coronavirus in NY because it will reduce the number of people going to bars and limit the time spent there.

Why open bars? Economics - they will make sales and make money.  Probably not as much money as if they were open unrestricted, but more than being closed.  They are trying to find a balance.  I have no idea if this particular rule is the best one they could have made.

The "we've been doing it since forever" was about nonsensical alcohol rules that limit sales (usually related to morality) that exist in various locations throughout the states, completely unrelated to the virus.

Again, this wasn't the law in Mass or NY before. Why make it now? Is it reducing the spread of coronavirus?

Because in Mass, they never sold to-go alcohol before (new situation, new rules).  Eating/drinking at home does reduce the spread of coronavirus - some people may be happier taking food home if they can get their favorite drinks from their favorite restaurant (and it increases revenue for the restaurant).  In NY, they never wanted to limit the time people spend at bars, now they do.

[Bloop Bloop]

Here are some interesting stats provided by this really handy website which tracks Australian stats

https://covidlive.com.au/vic

My state has a particularly robust testing regime so I think these figures can be taken with fewer grains of salt than some American figures where only symptomatic cases are tested. We've been testing nearly everyone - close to 40% of the state's population.

People under 50:
- 11,979 cases
- 51 hospitalisations (0.4%)
- 4 deaths (0.03%)

People over 80:
- 1,471 cases
- 361 hospitalisations (24.5%)
- 258 deaths (17.5%)

Unfortunately there have been badly handled outbreaks in aged care which have resulted in many nursing homes having preventable deaths due to uncontrolled transmission.

Overall our state has had 17,231 cases and 351 deaths (2.0%).

[LightTripper]

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

As an economist I probably shouldn't draw your attention to this, but he actually didn't: it was founded much later (1968) "in memory of" Alfred Nobel.

On the broader point @GuitarStv  I will certainly concede that most economics is not a science (in the sense that it is generally impossible to conduct true scientific experiments on most subjects of economic interest).  However, it seems a bit harsh to write off all social science as "pseudo-science".  The fact that something is not a science doesn't mean that it is worthless, or simply astrology.  Economists do our best to make sensible inferences and policy recommendations based on data and, while it's imperfect, I still believe it's better than the alternative of leaving everything to some well-meaning politician's "gut feel" for what is the right thing to do for the economy....

[scottish]

I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones. 

[Kyle Schuant]

There is a difference between something having an impact (the point deborah was making) and something being demonstrated to have an impact (the point you were making). 

The context was a graph of case numbers. So we were talking about the second. Thankyou for your noncontribution to the discussion.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

He didn't. But in the 60s the Nobel foundation was being whittled down and they needed some cash, so a bank handed some over on the condition they'd establish a prize for economics. They didn't want to, so they compromised and called it the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which is not a Nobel Prize, but is assessed by the same committee and awarded at the same ceremony and is for the same amount.

Which demonstrates how economics can argue about how no, it's not "printing money", it's quantitative easing, and... :)

Unfortunately there have been badly handled outbreaks in aged care which have resulted in many nursing homes having preventable deaths due to uncontrolled transmission.

The bull, properly-handled, is fairly harmless in the paddock. But the government let it get loose in the china shop. In response they have closed the paddock... and the rest of the farm for good measure. Meanwhile, the bull is still crashing around in the china shop largely unhindered.

But this is government. They send jobs overseas, then rebuke people for being unemployed. A man who by virtue of being mentally ill is ineligible to have a firearms license walks into a gun shop, and the owner illegally sells him a firearm, and the government responds by... no, not cracking down on gun shop owners, but changing the types of firearms people can buy. Government is guaranteed to ignore the real problems and get busy solving things that aren't a problem. "Is this a problem? No? Never mind, with enough work we can make it a problem!"

Years from now governments will be congratulating themselves for rebuilding the economy, getting people to get cancer screening, and mental health treatment. Government is a man who kicks you in the crotch then congratulates himself for giving you an ice pack.

[Abe]

Hospitalizations have come down in Texas, AZ, SoCal and Florida at this point. Not back to May or early June before the peaks hit, but about halfway there. Deaths are still high cresting, about 100-200 per day in each state. Those should trend down over the next month.

[GuitarStv]

I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones.

Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

Systematically building and organizing knowledge of astrology can be done scientifically - but it's not and never will be science because whatever is discovered the fundamental theory of astrology (that planetary alignment is responsible for what people do) is not being tested.  It doesn't matter how well you follow the scientific method to discover a cure for gayness if you then change fundamental theories of the field of study based upon what happens to be in popular fashion rather than evidence.  That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.  But they have value in the way that philosophy, literature, or religion has value.  This can be very important, but is different from the way that real science helps us to understand the world in an unequivocal way.

[Kyle Schuant]

Perhaps of interest, some observational science.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/17/what-we-now-know-about-covid19-and-what-questions-remain-to-be-answered/

[Buffaloski Boris]

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

Too funny. So we’re supposed to give special deference to the medical profession because they always agree, have consensus, and have no political overtones?

Sounds to me like we’re picking and choosing scientists based on whether or not we like their conclusions.

[Buffaloski Boris]

I'm curious: which facts about the virus do you think the Democrats do not understand?

I'd prefer peer-reviewed sources from actual clinicians, epidemiologists, and/or biomed scientists rather than an opinion blog from the CIO of a financial company whose entire academic and professional career has been in the field of economics.

LOL. I think you answered your own question with your preference for clinicians, epidemiologists and biomed scientists. All of those scientists have an important role BUT you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists to figure out how to approach the issue. The proferred solution used by other countries of long term lockdowns haven’t worked in the US and aren’t going to. We can wish all we want that people will abide by them, but they won’t. So given a disobedient population that distrusts many experts and often detests their political leadership, how do you fight a pandemic? The medical field can’t really answer that question because a lot of the underlying issues are outside of their technical expertise.

The poster specifically said "about the virus," not the socioeconomic issues related to the virus. Neither of you have answered my question sufficiently.

Naah. I answered the question. Now we’re splitting hairs.

[Bloop Bloop]

Two things of interest that came out of Victoria today:

Firstly, the police stupidly (and for no reason) issued a direction that people should stop driving to exercise. We are only allowed to exercise within a 5km radius anyway and it seems to me pointless to stop people from driving that small amount, particularly because people are driving to the shops to buy groceries, etc. It's just meddling and interference from the police, and the chief health officer had to bring it up and say he'll revise the guidelines.

We have police here who will harass people for not wearing a mask in public but they won't touch the religious celebrations and other mass family events that actually spread the disease.

Secondly, the government has said that case numbers have nearly fallen to the point where they will be able to publicly pinpoint clusters as they evolve, which is quite helpful for our understanding of where transmission takes place, and can also lead to sub-measures like locking down individual postcodes or suburbs. This I commend.

It's funny because the civil libertarians have been up in arms about the fact that the government (rightly) locked down several suburbs and housing commissions first, before locking down the rest of the state. But now I don't see any civil libertarians trying to vouch for the interests of those in, say, Mornington, where case numbers are extremely low but where they're locked down just like densely populated central Melbourne.

[deborah]

There is a difference between something having an impact (the point deborah was making) and something being demonstrated to have an impact (the point you were making). 

The context was a graph of case numbers. So we were talking about the second. Thankyou for your noncontribution to the discussion.

Actually, the graph was of the first. Case numbers. And the person who created the quoted illustration annotated it with the dates involved to show that the lockdown has made a difference. Thanks very much for that graph as it shows a lot.

You were talking about the R0 values rather than the number of cases. This defines how much of a difference the lockdown is making. With the graph, I can see why they’re not too happy.

[OtherJen]

I'm curious: which facts about the virus do you think the Democrats do not understand?

I'd prefer peer-reviewed sources from actual clinicians, epidemiologists, and/or biomed scientists rather than an opinion blog from the CIO of a financial company whose entire academic and professional career has been in the field of economics.

LOL. I think you answered your own question with your preference for clinicians, epidemiologists and biomed scientists. All of those scientists have an important role BUT you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists to figure out how to approach the issue. The proferred solution used by other countries of long term lockdowns haven’t worked in the US and aren’t going to. We can wish all we want that people will abide by them, but they won’t. So given a disobedient population that distrusts many experts and often detests their political leadership, how do you fight a pandemic? The medical field can’t really answer that question because a lot of the underlying issues are outside of their technical expertise.

The poster specifically said "about the virus," not the socioeconomic issues related to the virus. Neither of you have answered my question sufficiently.

Naah. I answered the question. Now we’re splitting hairs.

LOL, you didn't, but I'll let you have this one if it makes you feel better.

[Kyle Schuant]

It's funny because the civil libertarians have been up in arms about the fact that the government (rightly) locked down several suburbs and housing commissions first, before locking down the rest of the state. But now I don't see any civil libertarians trying to vouch for the interests of those in, say, Mornington, where case numbers are extremely low but where they're locked down just like densely populated central Melbourne.

Well, firstly we must distinguish between people who use civil liberties arguments when it suits them, and actually civil libertarians.

For example, I know a lot of lefties, and they were rightly indignant when the right-wing ScoMo wanted to bring in some "Henry VIII" provisions, allowing him to declare states of emergency and issue decrees - er, "regulations made in co-ordination with appropriate Ministers of the Crown" - overruling legislation. However, now that the left-wing Andrews wants to be able to extend states of emergency indefinitely without consulting parliament, giving him the same powers, they are indifferent. Likewise, right-wingers were unconcerned about ScoMo's powers, but express worry about Andrews' powers.

So they used civil libertarian arguments for what was really political team point-scoring.

Then there are those of us who say that human rights, rule of law and democratic government matter regardless of which particular bunch of clowns are doing pratfalls out of the honking clown car of government. After all, even if you don't care that this particular wonderful person has the powers now, at some point in the future the other team will be in charge with those same powers.

Those of us who are genuine civil libertarians have been concerned since March 23rd this year when the first lockdown happened, and more concerned in May when the full state parliament last sat and a 354 page bill was forced through with the MPs having less than 48 hours to look over it. And we have been more and more concerned ever since.

[Spud]

The US took just 24 days to go from 150,000 deaths to 175,000 deaths. What will the toll be on November 3, 2020? Will it even matter? Will anyone care by that point?

[2Birds1Stone]

I don't think anyone cares anymore. Soon this will be last years news.

[mizzourah2006]

I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones.

Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

Systematically building and organizing knowledge of astrology can be done scientifically - but it's not and never will be science because whatever is discovered the fundamental theory of astrology (that planetary alignment is responsible for what people do) is not being tested.  It doesn't matter how well you follow the scientific method to discover a cure for gayness if you then change fundamental theories of the field of study based upon what happens to be in popular fashion rather than evidence.  That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.  But they have value in the way that philosophy, literature, or religion has value.  This can be very important, but is different from the way that real science helps us to understand the world in an unequivocal way.

So you cherry-picked two examples from two huge fields to show how one is "true science" and another is "pseudo-science" sounds pretty scientific to me. I'm convinced.

[GuitarStv]

I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones.

Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

Systematically building and organizing knowledge of astrology can be done scientifically - but it's not and never will be science because whatever is discovered the fundamental theory of astrology (that planetary alignment is responsible for what people do) is not being tested.  It doesn't matter how well you follow the scientific method to discover a cure for gayness if you then change fundamental theories of the field of study based upon what happens to be in popular fashion rather than evidence.  That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.  But they have value in the way that philosophy, literature, or religion has value.  This can be very important, but is different from the way that real science helps us to understand the world in an unequivocal way.

So you cherry-picked two examples from two huge fields to show how one is "true science" and another is "pseudo-science" sounds pretty scientific to me. I'm convinced.

The examples were intended to show the difference of approach between science and pseudo-science.  One of the reasons that people are so often taken in by social 'science' is that they very dogmatically follow the trappings of science (scientific method, publishing results) but carefully leave out a few key parts.  That's why I picked the example I gave for psychology.  If you can't measurably show that something is a problem, then it's never going to be possible to find a cure/solution for that problem - no matter how many trappings of science you try to cloak yourself in.

I take a little affront at the accusation of cherry picking.  The DSM is still the bible for psychiatric treatment in North America.  None of the diagnosis were included based upon measurable criteria - because that would require defining a 'normal' human state (or range of states).  That's not cherry picking an example, that's underpinning of the whole field of study!  That's very different than any real science.  Again, pick any aspect of climate science and I'll be able to show the data that supports the theories, how the data can be reproduced reliably by anyone, and how the theories work together to create a unified understanding of climate change.  Climate science doesn't include things based upon political or popular conception.  If it did, we wouldn't have any climate crisis . . . it's a lot more profitable to ignore a problem of our own making (or pretend it doesn't exist) than try to get people to change consumption habits.

Again, this doesn't mean that the pseudo-sciences are without value.  I'd argue that there's tremendous value in the study of philosophy and literature without either being a science.  Many people draw comfort and make personal decisions from religion, psychology, and economics - these fields of study are not without value.

But by grasping for legitimacy they don't deserve, an awful lot of harm has been done in the name of the social sciences.  Again, sticking with psychology . . . look at the 'cures' for the undefined problem that it has produced over the ages.  Cures for homosexuality, trepanation, electro-shock therapy, dosing people with LSD, etc.  these treatments were devised with the trappings of science . . . but without first being able to define what 'normal' is there was no way of determining if they actually worked.  So eventually they've fallen out of favour . . . not because of measurable result but by popular opinion.

It's possible to show the same types of fundamental flaws with all social sciences . . . and doesn't require any cherry-picking.  These areas of study are rooted at a baseline in pseudo-science and should not be treated as or considered science.

[mizzourah2006]

I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones.

Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

Systematically building and organizing knowledge of astrology can be done scientifically - but it's not and never will be science because whatever is discovered the fundamental theory of astrology (that planetary alignment is responsible for what people do) is not being tested.  It doesn't matter how well you follow the scientific method to discover a cure for gayness if you then change fundamental theories of the field of study based upon what happens to be in popular fashion rather than evidence.  That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.  But they have value in the way that philosophy, literature, or religion has value.  This can be very important, but is different from the way that real science helps us to understand the world in an unequivocal way.

So you cherry-picked two examples from two huge fields to show how one is "true science" and another is "pseudo-science" sounds pretty scientific to me. I'm convinced.

The examples were intended to show the difference of approach between science and pseudo-science.  One of the reasons that people are so often taken in by social 'science' is that they very dogmatically follow the trappings of science (scientific method, publishing results) but carefully leave out a few key parts.  That's why I picked the example I gave for psychology.  If you can't measurably show that something is a problem, then it's never going to be possible to find a cure/solution for that problem - no matter how many trappings of science you try to cloak yourself in.

I take a little affront at the accusation of cherry picking.  The DSM is still the bible for psychiatric treatment in North America.  None of the diagnosis were included based upon measurable criteria - because that would require defining a 'normal' human state (or range of states).  That's not cherry picking an example, that's underpinning of the whole field of study!  That's very different than any real science.  Again, pick any aspect of climate science and I'll be able to show the data that supports the theories, how the data can be reproduced reliably by anyone, and how the theories work together to create a unified understanding of climate change.  Climate science doesn't include things based upon political or popular conception.  If it did, we wouldn't have any climate crisis . . . it's a lot more profitable to ignore a problem of our own making (or pretend it doesn't exist) than try to get people to change consumption habits.

Again, this doesn't mean that the pseudo-sciences are without value.  I'd argue that there's tremendous value in the study of philosophy and literature without either being a science.  Many people draw comfort and make personal decisions from religion, psychology, and economics - these fields of study are not without value.

But by grasping for legitimacy they don't deserve, an awful lot of harm has been done in the name of the social sciences.  Again, sticking with psychology . . . look at the 'cures' for the undefined problem that it has produced over the ages.  Cures for homosexuality, trepanation, electro-shock therapy, dosing people with LSD, etc.  these treatments were devised with the trappings of science . . . but without first being able to define what 'normal' is there was no way of determining if they actually worked.  So eventually they've fallen out of favour . . . not because of measurable result but by popular opinion.

It's possible to show the same types of fundamental flaws with all social sciences . . . and doesn't require any cherry-picking.  These areas of study are rooted at a baseline in pseudo-science and should not be treated as or considered science.

Oh ok, so Clinical Psychology encompasses the entire field of psychology. That makes sense. That's good to know. I'll tell all my friends that have PhDs in psychology, but know nothing about Clinical that they didn't study psychology. Given your expertise what should I tell them their PhD is in?

[frugalnacho]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-k-v7i-QeI

[LightTripper]

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

I'm taking this even more off topic but lest we think the evils of conversion therapy are dead, there are still places in the US that will use electrical shocks to try to normalise autistic people and rectify their "disorders" as defined by the DSM (and many many other places, funded by insurance, that drill young autistic children for 40 hours a week with the same goal in mind). 

It doesn't mean that the DSM is rubbish in its entirety, or has no value (or that psychology is rubbish, or economics, or any other social science).  I still think there is value to trying to apply the scientific method to social (including economic) data, however - while recognising the challenges of doing that.  Dismissing it all as akin to astrology is too harsh.