Forums

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ve not read what Epstein said.

I’m only working with what you’ve said: Nothing.

You really do need to read the Epstein interview, for the comedy if not the science: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and...administration

The single most ridiculed paragraph is probably this one, where he explains why its better to trust a lawyer than an epidemiologist on his various theories (including the idea that the virus will weaken over time - he then goes on to use AIDs as an example, despite that just not being at all accurate):

And you’re not an epidemiologist, correct?

No, I’m trained in all of these things. I’ve done a lot of work in these particular areas. And one of the things that is most annoying about this debate is you see all sorts of people putting up expertise on these subjects, but they won’t let anybody question their particular judgment. One of the things you get as a lawyer is a skill of cross-examination. I spent an enormous amount of time over my career teaching medical people about some of this stuff, and their great strengths are procedures and diagnoses in the cases. Their great weakness is understanding general-equilibrium theory.

And Epstein's meltdown toward the end is just wonderful.