231–240 of 438 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Johns Hopkins data Feb 27, 2020 [0], Iran would come to: Deaths: 26 Recovered: 49 (26 / (26 + 49)) = 34.7% [0] https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...
We can conclude that Iran is severely underreporting cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, there is a doomer mentality that applies to everything (climate change, geopolitical tensions, etc) and which the media are more than happy to fuel to sell paper and commercials.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, in the context of a novel pandemic, downplaying the risks is far worse than overplaying them IMO.
Probably true, as long as you're not one of the ones rounded up and sent to prison, er, I mean, quarantine.
The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…
Btw, you made a point about exponential growth, but is that happening? The logarithmic graph on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ appears flatlined to me. Maybe (probably?) that's just about containment in China, but when we're discussing death rates that's where most of the data is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reference for that, please?
In the who presentation, Dr Bruce Aylward mentioned this. I'll try to dig up the exact spot in the clip for you. At 1:07:44 this is discussed in depth: https://youtu.be/-o0q1XMRKYM
After he said that someone else from the WHO contradicted him.
"The claim was quickly challenged by an infectious diseases expert who serves on a committee that advises the WHO’s health emergencies program.
Gary Kobinger, director of the Infectious Disease Research Center at Laval University in Quebec, said it would be highly unusual for there not to be mild or symptom-free cases that are being missed. He pointed to the fact that outbreaks have popped up in countries far from China — including Iran and Italy — because people with mild infections were not detected and traveled to other places.
'There are mild cases that are undetected. This is why it’s spreading. Otherwise it would not be spreading because we would know where those cases are and they would be contained and that would be the end of it,' said Kobinger, who insisted that mild, undetected infections cannot be ruled out until people who haven’t been diagnosed with the illness can be tested for antibodies to the virus.
'As long as we do not have good serology data, I think that it is completely speculative to say that there are no undetected cases,' Kobinger said."
What Dr. Aylward says makes no sense and reads more like a PR fluff piece designed to praise China to keep them happy, and as Kobinger points out he's probably wrong. From the same press conference he says this "If I had COVID-19, I’d want to be treated in China."
Which is obviously bullshit.
The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…
On the other hand, what do you say to the claims that the real mortality rate is much lower due to people infected but with symptoms so mild they don't seek treatment?
The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…
I do have one question and I'm asking this seriously, not to start an argument or to attack someone. I also saw this here in a lot of the posts about covid-19. We have numbers, but every time people tend to ignore them or say we should not trust the numbers, take them with a grain of salt, "I think this is way worse, it's going to get way worse" and so on. It's like there is this thirst for disaster or some global dr…
Yes, I see the same effect skewing media and popular perception. It's an artifact of natural selection biasing human responses to perceived potential danger. It slightly enhanced survival rates to incorrectly fear every rustling bush hid a hungry tiger than correctly calculate it was almost certainly a squirrel. Hence, every historical era is overrun with politicians, pundits, journalists and activists incentivized to leverage this innate bias in service of their cause.
After a few decades of observing this in action, my best model is to assume everyone has some bias driven by their background, perspective and incentives - even if it's entirely unconscious. Then it's just a matter of determining direction and degree to apply a debiasing adjustment.
Journalists tend to sensationalize, whether overtly or merely through curation ("the bad thing isn't so bad" doesn't get clicks). Politicians either over or underplay threats depending on the context. Exaggerating the Huawei threat to support tariff policy or minimizing COVID-19 to reduce negative economic perceptions in an election year.
In my estimation, some sources, such as the CDC, are less biased not necessarily because they lack biasing incentives but often due to those incentives having opposite signs and offsetting each other. For example, the senior CDC administrators who control public statements (as opposed to the medical and science staff doing the work). Those administrators are most likely good people trying to do a very tough job as well as they can. However, they also live in a world of budget battles, congressional hearings, and the media blame-game. In the underplay direction, a public panic makes things worse and leads to post hoc blame game ("why wasn't the CDC ready?"). In the overplay direction, people not taking the threat seriously means they don't cancel large events or reduce airplane travel and it spreads faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're pretty far off the mark here. >90% of people have healthcare coverage in the U.S.[1]. Those that don't are likely illegal or homeless or in some way don't qualify for medical coverage (I also don't know how prisoners are counted in the data). Many people I know visit the doctor way more often than they need to or should (I know those who receive it free to purchase it to use employer insurance - like m…
I have heard multiple times that one of the problems with American healthcare is that we are over treated. Part of the reason our healthcare costs are so much higher is because we tend to get large amounts of doctor visits, presciptions, and procedures compared to other nations. I wonder how this squares with the notion I keep seeing about how Americans will avoid the doctor as much as possible?
But that's when they go to the doctor. A lot avoid going at all. When I suspected I had strep throat a couple months ago, I went to an in-network doctor and was charged ~$70. Additionally, that charge was unpredictable--when I went there, I had no idea if it would be free or $200, and when I left, they told me it was $0. They sent the bill a few weeks after dealing with my insurance.
To a lot of Americans, "this will cost somewhere between $0 and $200" is not something they can just shrug their shoulders at. It can actually affects their short-term finances in a significant way.
(Also, before anyone chimes in with "this is because they're irresponsible with budgeting", that's irrelevant to the point being raised here: A lot of Americans will avoid the doctor to avoid these bills. It doesn't matter whether we blame them or not--the effect is the same.)
And some extra bad news: It's not chiefly software engineers in this situation. I live with a teacher, a teaching assistant, and several food service workers. They're the ones who fall in the "doctor visits are too expensive" category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do have one question and I'm asking this seriously, not to start an argument or to attack someone. I also saw this here in a lot of the posts about covid-19. We have numbers, but every time people tend to ignore them or say we should not trust the numbers, take them with a grain of salt, "I think this is way worse, it's going to get way worse" and so on. It's like there is this thirst for disaster or some global dr…
My reasoning for thinking this is worthy of panic: I recently moved to China. The PRC has good numbers (internally) and knows more about COVID-19's severity and risk profile than anyone else. And, on the ground, the PRC is putting the entire country on what amounts to wartime footing (in a way that's unimaginable to most HN readers), to the point that it's willing to sacrifice a quarter or more worth of economic prod…
> The percentage shown below does NOT represent in any way the