His proof is very limited, mostly hospital bed ocupancy being way bellow the predicted values.
His pinned tweet says “FREE AMERICA NOW”.
Has anyone tried quantifying the human cost of house confinement? If people are so concerned about the risk of not leaving, I think we need to start putting hard numbers around what these draconian measures are costing us. There is a cost and it's not even clear that have a good grasp of what it is. Outside of the human cost, there's major precedents and political ramifications.
Are we entering a world where we'll constantly do similar hysterics around trendlines of deaths and micromanaging policy? Clearly preventable, chronic disease is a far more potent killer but less visible since it happens over a long time period.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-commerci...
Several politicians from the current US administration share the opinion to open up.
Maybe mr Musk would like to open up the economy. Maybe he does believe that's for the better, for the economy. Is that right? My understanding is that it is not, but I'm no epidemiologist.
Is he biased? Probably! Does a CEO waiting for a federal organization to announce if his company will win a contract from NASA looks OK when he doesn't wait a couple of days to tweet such a controversial tweet?
I don't think so.
Lockdown is a luxury only the rich countries can afford in the first place, I don't think it makes sense for everyone. Whether Musk is right or not in the American context, will be determined by the end of next winter when the final body count is tallied.
[1]. https://www.ft.com/content/dec12470-894b-11ea-9dcb-fe6871f41...
As for Elon Musk, and most famous people, I treat there opinions with no more credibility than I do the grocer or the shoe shine. Just because some media person decides to repeat your words does not make it right.
Of course if I see it on Hacker News thats a different story ... Not that it is more accurate, but it will be better vetted. Others will chime in with counter opinion. Its not a one way street.
First, one question would be that maybe hospital bed occupancy being way bellow the predicted values is because measures were taken.
Similar to saying "The military is useless because nobody is attacking us" or "See? It wasn't necessary to vaccinate everyone. Nobody has polio in hospitals!"
Second, the measures can be seen as too strict in retrospective. However, nobody wants to have a retrospective of lackadaisical measures that lead to many more deaths. In other words, when in doubt is it sane to roll the dice. Is it better to say "sorry, I pushed you because I saw the driver lose control and kill ten people already" or "sorry, I shrugged it off and now you're dead". Overzealous measures can be taken down a few notches. It can be hard to recover, especially with loss of employment, but loss of life is harder to recover from.. The consequences of lax measures lead to irrecoverable and irreversible states.
Third, it would have been over-reacting if there were only one country dealing with it and there were no data, but I don't think it's easy not to over-react when you see countries that were hit really hard, even with no real data.