Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 462 posts

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#61

Post by mpmpmpmp »

nutjob2 wrote: post #54
partiallypro wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The craziest stat I heard today was on my local news, and it was about COVID19 in the county, Davidson County (Nashville, TN,) they said of all the active cases in the county only 2 had been hospitalized. That's out of 163. The others were sent home to be quarantined and medicated. I was floored. Why are stats like that not shared? That seems like very valuable information. Hospitalization rates should be one of the…

> Why are stats like that not shared? That seems like very valuable information. Because it's only 163, and data of an unknown quality.

In Iowa the Department of Health is reporting over 2100 negative tests (we are currently only testing patients who come into the hospital or already admitted) and 105 confirmed cases. Obviously a much smaller population size than other areas.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#62

Post by avsteele »

jtsnow wrote: post #22

Ioannidis continues to push this evidence-based approach, but I have not yet seen an adequate response to critics such as Nassim Taleb or Yaneer Bar-Yam. They argue that one doesn't need raw evidence to act if the statistical evidence shows that the risks are catastrophic. They published a paper on January 26th which lays out arguments for why conventional risk management approaches are inadequate in these situations…

I find Taleb's argument specious. The risk inherent in a reaction can be pretty catastrophic as well; for example we are now seeing some project 20%+ unemployment in the next quarter.

In addition, we do have data on the possible harms from Coronovirus, since we have more CFR data at this point. This puts bounds on possible harms. For more detail see John's other article in statnews. The results of the Diamond Princess cruise ship also are telling [1].

It looks like Iceland has about 1% of its people infected [2]. This didn't happen overnight, and Iceland is doing OK.

[1] https://twitter.com/maximlott/status/1241718453700038658?s=2...

[2] https://www.government.is/news/article/2020/03/15/Large-scal...

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#63

Post by cameldrv »

rumblecat wrote: post #56
jtsnow wrote: post #22

Ioannidis continues to push this evidence-based approach, but I have not yet seen an adequate response to critics such as Nassim Taleb or Yaneer Bar-Yam. They argue that one doesn't need raw evidence to act if the statistical evidence shows that the risks are catastrophic. They published a paper on January 26th which lays out arguments for why conventional risk management approaches are inadequate in these situations…

Risk management is the correct way to go when uncertainty is high. Containment was the correct approach at the time. When evidence starts coming in, then you can start applying evidence based approaches. > Mortality rate: Mortality and morbidity rates are also downward biased, due to the lag between identified cases, deaths and reporting of those deaths [1] > Among 3,711 Diamond Princess passengers and crew, 712 (19.…

Right, so do the math. 5% of positives required intensive care. If 197 million Americans get this, That means 10 million people go to intensive care. There are 60,000 ICU beds in the U.S. If 10 million people need the ICU, effectively none get a ventilator and they all die.

Now it's true that the cruise ship passengers skewed significantly older, but on the other hand, they were all ambulatory and healthy enough to be taking a cruise. There are populations that are at significantly higher risk than the cruise ship passengers.

Also, Chinese experience was that about half of the people admitted to the ICU eventually died.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#64

Post by Geee »

I saw the videos from Wuhan hospitals 2 months ago and it was clear that the severity of this was off the charts. You can pretty much scale up the situation from a single hospital, because it tells you that it's impacting locally more than the hospital can respond.

You don't need "evidence" of how many are actually infected or what is the correct R or CFR or which way it spreads. Just look how it's impacting the local health care system. If it exceeds the capacity by X % that's how big a problem it is.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#65

Post by guscost »

acqq wrote: post #58
guscost wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not yet seen an adequate response to critics such as Nassim Taleb or Yaneer Bar-Yam. Is that even necessary? Taleb's school argues that empiricism has fundamental shortcomings because it must be "incomplete" in a world of imperfect (read: statistical) evidence. I agree it's a big problem, one that we are not likely to solve. But they go on to say "therefore, we must apply the precautionary principle to XYZ"…

Taleb's point is that high uncertainties which can result in catastrophic loss are worth of spending money to protect against. In our present case, the real nonsense is US allocating funds for a 1.5 trillion dollar plane, but totally avoiding investing in the response of pandemics... before it can be too late. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-long-will-it-ta... "science can meet the challenges, but there…

Surely you must see that now we're having a moral/ethical/political/religious argument, very far removed from anything resembling science?

This is exactly my point. You may believe that you have identified all of "the real nonsense" perfectly well, and your suggestions might be better or worse than mine. But good luck becoming any more certain than you are right now, or proving your case to anyone else.

Put another way: If you believe that X is a "serious enough" risk and I do not, but I believe that Y is a "serious enough" risk and you do not, how do we resolve that disagreement? Who gets the money?

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#66

Post by jbc1 »

Geee wrote: post #64

I saw the videos from Wuhan hospitals 2 months ago and it was clear that the severity of this was off the charts. You can pretty much scale up the situation from a single hospital, because it tells you that it's impacting locally more than the hospital can respond. You don't need "evidence" of how many are actually infected or what is the correct R or CFR or which way it spreads. Just look how it's impacting the loca…

CFR can give you an indication of how long its going to last. If its low and you're getting smashed, that tells you that significant portions of the population are getting infected and it will run out of steam sooner. Higher CFR tells you that the exceeded capacity will last for longer. That will impact the strategies you use.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#67

Post by nate_meurer »

Medicalidiot wrote: post #53
treyfitty wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they regret it? I don’t follow your reasoning. They got a hold of the outbreak precisely because they ramped up quarantining

I was being sarcastic.... it never translates well over text.

I must have have a naturally sarcastic inner monologue, because your sarcasm came through loud and clear to me.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#68

Post by flukus »

ropiwqefjnpoa wrote: post #27

There was a comment on HN a few days ago basically saying, "what's wrong with panic, maybe we should be panicking" and I just found that comment frightening. We mock all the "idiots" buying up the toilet paper, but panic clouds the clear thinking of even the "intelligent". It can absolutely effect our leaders and medical professionals.

Depends on what people define as panic and the degree of it. I started stocking up food a couple of things a time in January and many people told me I was panicking. If a lot more people had panicked like me shopping would be easier.

As it turns out I didn't panic enough either, I should have had more toilet paper and pasta to get through the panic from other people.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#70

Post by Medicalidiot »

nate_meurer wrote: post #67
Medicalidiot wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was being sarcastic.... it never translates well over text.

I must have have a naturally sarcastic inner monologue, because your sarcasm came through loud and clear to me.

I thought it was so outlandish that no one could actually believe it. Then I thought about my crazy uncle who still thinks this is a bioweapon released by the Chinese on its own citizens.
Post reply on HN