That’s a startling outcome to me. Is it because she claims to hold the consensus view? Because it was well written?
How do you conclude with being curious to understand “what is driving Levitt” rather than “what is Levitt’s reasoning?”
A broader question is what should happen when a scientist voices a non scientific opinion? A famous scientist is more likely to get my attention than some ordinary scientist or some pundit. Maybe I am a sophisticated consumer, or may be not. Should I believe this person just because he or she is a scientist? Should the scientist issue a disclaimer - "this is my non scientific opinion"? I think a point Harris is making is that if one is going to opine while wearing the mantle of scientific authority - Nobel, Stanford prof - your arguments should be robust. Harris met that standard for me.
Every word in "this is verifiably false" links to a different article, only one of which provides even weak evidence that one might characterize as supporting the claim:
* Link one is to an article about San Francisco from December 10, claiming that hospitals there will run out of beds in 17 days. Florida is not mentioned (incidentally, hospital capacity in SF has increased slightly since the article was written [1]).
* Link two is to a an article about Miami-Dade from December 4, where they quote CEOs from two hospital chains, who say that they have enough beds to handle the current caseload, but "may" not have enough staff.
* Link three is about cases nationwide. It does not mention Florida.
* Link four is about a White House report from November. The article explicitly says: "The November 29 document showed a minimal change in total hospitalization from the week prior". The "evidence" here is that the document predicts a "post-Thanksgiving surge".
To my knowledge, no hospital system in Florida has been "overwhelmed" by any conventional definition of the word [2]. Florida hospitals currently appear to be well below the peak seen in July [3]. The predicted "post-thanksgiving surge" does not appear to have materialized [4].
Reasonable people can certainly disagree and debate the current level of strain on hospitals in the US, and the appropriate trade-offs in our response to these strains. However, it's not fair or intellectually honest to attack another person for weaknesses in past speculation when you are yourself engaging in speculative, possibly misleading forms of arguments.
[1] https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/Hospital-Capacity/qtdt-yqr2...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/covid19/report-patient-impact.html
[3] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/coronavirus/os-ne-coronaviru...
The link to Levitt's supposed comments to the governor is broken, so we can't verify what he actually said in detail. However, if you follow the other links, you can see that she is not above taking comments out of context when it serves her purpose. In the comment about about 10 deaths in Israel, it's fairly clear that Levitt is not making a bold claim about the distant future -- he's saying that given the case counts at the time, it would be surprising to see more than ten deaths, not predicting ten deaths in Israel, ever.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-hospitals-...
https://bi.ahca.myflorida.com/t/ABICC/views/Public/HospitalB...
This is consistent with the CDC link my previous post. Of course, it's not possible to tell how this compares to any normal year, because we don't have that data.
EDIT: adding a link to an interview w/ Levitt from 8/20: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/02/qa-michael-levitt-o...