[76lsjumb]

I think it is really important for those from the many perspectives here (and there really are many perspectives) to acknowledge that the scientists are making their best projections based on what we know so far.  I am fine with policy makers being conservative with regard to potential loss of lives and resulting economic damage until the information shows we can ease up on the conservative precautions.  The scientists and policy makers I try to pay most attention to are those who are regularly adjusting their models based on the evidence and who have not staked out a strong public position that they refuse to alter.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

This is certainly a reasonable approach, but do you believe determining when "the information shows we can ease up on the conservative precautions" is a scientific or, for lack of a better term, a "political" question?  I think that's a political question, not a scientific one.  I also think many [although I readily admit I have no idea if you are among those folks] brand that a scientific question in order to make their answer appear more "factual," when in reality, it is simply a different risk analysis than that of someone who, for example, favors fewer restrictions.

[76lsjumb]

I think it is really important for those from the many perspectives here (and there really are many perspectives) to acknowledge that the scientists are making their best projections based on what we know so far.  I am fine with policy makers being conservative with regard to potential loss of lives and resulting economic damage until the information shows we can ease up on the conservative precautions.  The scientists and policy makers I try to pay most attention to are those who are regularly adjusting their models based on the evidence and who have not staked out a strong public position that they refuse to alter.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

This is certainly a reasonable approach, but do you believe determining when "the information shows we can ease up on the conservative precautions" is a scientific or, for lack of a better term, a "political" question?  I think that's a political question, not a scientific one.  I also think many [although I readily admit I have no idea if you are among those folks] brand that a scientific question in order to make their answer appear more "factual," when in reality, it is simply a different risk analysis than that of someone who, for example, favors fewer restrictions.