Rationalizing vs reasoning
Like in investing, complicated frameworks are for former purpose. We use them to derive preferred outcomes, not reliable ones.
Any elaborate framework is meant to rationalize a predetermined decision, not to reason towards a sensible one. Anyone from my line of work, who has gone through a DCF charade, knows exactly what I mean.
Today's tragic real-world example of this timeless philosophy:
"If a district's TPR is sub-5% and oxygen-bed occupancy is sub-25%, then Barbers on both sides of the road can open beyond 9am-4pm, Monday-Friday, at 50% occupancy, without A/C, no walk-ins, only appointments"
Having come up with the most elaborate framework in human history, my city bailed on transitioning to level-2 unlock despite both conditions being met (weekly TPR was sub-5%, latest MIS shows 22% Oxygen bed occupancy). Framework has been labeled 'indicative' because it's inconvenient.
That brings me to my second philosophical point. Seeing through euphemisms, this boils down to a privileged few (lauded by other privileged) telling impoverished millions "Hey, you've starved for 10 weeks, what difference will another two make".
Prohibiting people from earning a living and feeding their family has been callously normalized. This is the most dangerous legacy of past year. A measure of last resort, meant for limited time under extraordinary circumstances, gets extended, ad hoc, for months without basis (separately empirically-sound basis has not been provided even for limited time use).
A minority, who can work from home without consequences, continue to ruin (or support ruin of) lives of a majority who cannot work at all.
Weekend rant done, I better get back to writing about investing!
Isn't a more fundamental problem lack of representativeness/lack of skin in the game for the people who are likely to get affected by the decision ? Reminds me of the curmudgeonly uncle who shoo-ed us from playing cricket in a play ground and finally got a fence erected near his house as our shrill shrieks intruded on his post lunch siesta even after we kept up our pinky promise of "silent" cricket.
Maybe the issue is that the framework is not really good enough/refined to be useful? It's like when the weather predicting software says sunny days ahead, but it's obviously raining when you step outside.
Completely agree about the inequity of not reopening the economy and singling out sectors (why is an "IT office" more important than a "restaurant"??). Totally arbitrary (and likely populist).
Wonder what the better predictors would be? Especially given that Wave II is significantly 'faster spreading' than Wave I. 🤷🏻♂️