onhardt who's a senior writer at the New York Times and therefore we should all listen to him, he did a tweet thread in which he's showing, he's making the point that science doesn't know why the COVID cases suddenly dropped. They also don't know why they spiked. And they won't know why they dropped next time and they won't know why they spiked next time. Now of course the Delta variant is part of the story, but even if you factor in all the things we do know, according to a senior writer at the New York Times who I agree with and therefore he must be right using my confirmation bias, I agree with him so therefore this must be true news.

So basically he's making the case that we don't know why it plunges up and we don't know why it plunges down. Do you believe that? How many of you accept the beginning premise? How many of you accept the premise that the experts don't really know why things are going up and down the way they're going up and down? Everybody on board with that? Yeah. So anybody who says it's because of masks, it's because of mandates, it's because of vaccinations, those are all variables. We don't know what weight to put in all the variables exactly. But we don't know why anything's going up and down.

Now if you agree with that, here's the next part you should agree with logically. That the two people who got the Nobel Prize for economics didn't deserve it. And I do, and I'm not kidding. Who was the person who told you often and publicly, and I think the only one, and fact check me on both of these claims. Number one claim: I'm the only one to say this and I said it early and publicly that we'd never know how much impact leadership had on different countries' outcomes because it would be too complicated. Who else said that? Name one other person who told you at the beginning of the pandemic that at the end we wouldn't know who did a good job. Nobody else. I'm the only one who told you that, pretty sure.

And it's completely opposite of what the guys who just won the Nobel Prize in economics would have told you. They would have told you, because this is what they won their prize for, that you just take two areas that are largely the same. You say oh this one had this policy and this one had this one and then because the areas are largely the same you could observe the differences and then you'd know something. And I told you exactly the opposite. I told you that in complex systems there's no way you can compare them because you're just guessing that the other stuff doesn't matter. And guessing's the opposite of science. It's the opposite. It's literally you could not be more opposite of science than just sitting there and guessing. Well I'm looking at Norway and I'm looking at Sweden and I'm gonna guess that there are no variables except the ones that I've decided are important. I'm just going to guess because you know I don't know of any so I just guess there aren't any. That's not a real control group. That is somebody guessing and then laundering their guess with science.

That's right. The guys who won the Nobel Prize in economics are teaching you how to launder fake news through science and they got a Nobel Prize for it. That prize should be mine, damn it. No I don't really mean that except it's true. I don't mean it but it does, it also has the benefit of being 100 percent true as far as I know.

All right, I tweeted and got just a huge reaction to this tweet. I said, dear government, what level of virus risk do we need to reach before ending all mandates and restrictions? If you don't have a target, don't expect compliance. Don't expect compliance if you don't have a target. What do you think? A lot of people retweeted this so it looked popular. But I would say this is basic leadership. It's the most basic leadership. I'm going to ask you to do this really hard thing and the reason we're going to ask you to do it is to achieve this goal. Win a war, for example. Stop climate change from getting above a certain level, for example. Pretty specific.

If som