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

131–140 of 462 posts

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

#131

Post by [deleted] »

rbritton wrote: post #126
joe_the_user wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington state doesn't have a statewide lockdown, I don't know if even Seattle has a lockdown. California is doing the best but there are still crowds defying the lockdown at beaches and parks. Just as much, grocery stores are open as usual and even with most people trying to do social distancing, I'm doubtful you're clamping that hard on the infection, unfortunately. I think the best is that when fatalities spike…

Washington does as of 5:00 pm PDT today.

[deleted]

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

#132

Post by ClumsyPilot »

ropiwqefjnpoa wrote: post #48
yurlungur wrote: post #46

It's easy to point at others for imperfect data and imperfect science when the situation is evolving so fast and data is so hard to come by. It seems to me that papers being retracted due to inaccurate evidence is not a sign of sensationalism but of sound science. Once can argue that more diligence should be practiced in the review process, but I assume everyone is trying their best to get the information out there A…

The response will have it consequences too, lost lives, destroyed businesses, ruined families, lost requirement savings.

And a runaway global pandemic will kill more people than Mao, Hitler and Stalin combined. Pick your poison.

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

#133

Post by rglullis »

mikemotherwell wrote: post #97
RobertRoberts wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every circumstance you mentioned was not "solved" with panic, but was solved with thoughtful and persitant action. If you are proposing the only way to "thoughtful and persistent action" is by being induced by panic. Then I would appreciate your evidence of this. For example the 2038 problem is more serious that Y2k. My actions today (as soon as I found out about it) was to alter all current and future systems and pl…

That's not the point being made. Panic was not what was done or suggested, it was the dismissive tone that such concerns were met with by Critics. GP's point was that the claims it was panic were wrong and harmful, not the quote unquote "panic".

Yes, and not just the dismissive tone. Even worse is the fact that the "we need more data" crowd mistakes Absence of Evidence for Evidence of Absence - as in "I will only wear the seat-belt after I witness a car-crash in front of me".

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

droithomme wrote: post #130
usaar333 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That rate is highly unlikely to hold. There's enough stay in place restrictions in effect to drive it down after about a week or so. FWIW, at this point, it looks like NYC is going to take a huge hit and the other outbreaks (Seattle, California) will look mild comparitively.

I wonder. Willing to admit incorrect if parent prediction proves true? Or pivot if not to a new supposition and declare victory? (I'd say 3.5 weeks myself.)

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by robocat »

Barrin92 wrote: post #103
defen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.” Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? Where does the idea of 1% come fro…

>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…

~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK.

Fine numbers in the presence of a health system that is not overloaded, or a country that has managed to make effective changes to prevent transmission (how did they do that without science huh?)

By John’s numbers (0.3% die and 1% of population) Italy should get a total of 1800 deaths. Yet Italy is at 6000 and rapidly rising - using real numbers his assumptions are already wrong for a first world country that is a few weeks ahead of the rest of the world.

And why the fuck does he assume 1%? Because some actions have been taken? What actions can be taken since by his own words we lack evidence to make decisions...

Edit: by my calculations the US has 800000 cases at the moment (compared to ~40000 tested positive). 500 deaths with a 0.5% death rate, so three weeks ago there were 100000 cases, but it will have doubled 4 times in 21 days so there is now 800000 cases (already 0.2% of population). Three more doublings (easily realistic) beats John’s 1% within weeks. Ironically, going with his low mortality rate (0.025%) would mean US has 2% infected already...

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

#136

Post by abiogenesis »

Barrin92 wrote: post #103
defen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.” Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? Where does the idea of 1% come fro…

>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…

I am speculating, but it might be because Italy tested some (many) people after they died. That would skew the fatality statistics.

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

#137

Post by hartator »

dannykwells wrote: post #20

Let's check back on this piece in...2 weeks, say, when there are 10,000+ Corona deaths in the US. Well see how it ages then. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/21/upshot/corona... 427× 16 =11102

Well deaths in the US only for flu were 50,000 last year. Still 5x less.

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

#138

Post by admax88q »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #92
acqq wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the data we need. We know how fast it grows, we know how bad it is. It's at least order of magnitude (as in, surely ten times) worse than flu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Is_COVID-19_like_a_flu%3F... As shown, in Italy there were 55 times more deaths per week (two weeks already) than the peek during the flu season. And it continues to grow. > are people actually going to hospitals when they don't need…

Consider this, if the news reported "Old people with pre-existing conditions should quarantine themselves because a deadly virus may kill them", that would be rational advice based on data. Instead, the entire economy has been shut down, and the solution? Test everyone regardless of risk or value of testing. This is not rational, and many scientists and doctors are saying this. Doctors and nurses should be tested reg…

> Instead, the entire economy has been shut down, and the solution?

The hospitals are being overrun.

Your whole comments just reads like you're upset that you can't go out with your friends anymore. "Why should I have to stay at home, its the old people that are in danger, they should have to stay home."

The hospitals are being overrun. That means that if left unchecked the virus overwhelms healthcare. Just yesterday we've hospitalized people in their 30s and 40s here. It's not just the old people who need intensive care. It seems to be its the old people who die even with intensive care.

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

#139

Post by joe_the_user »

Barrin92 wrote: post #129
joe_the_user wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unanswered question of the GP is why you'd expect only 1% of the US population to be infect? I can't see the slightest basis for such an assumption. This an extremely infectious, quickly spreading disease. 30% of the US population seem like a more likely estimate. SK has a 1.3% fatality rate at the end but that was with a functioning health case system. If even 1% of the US population get infect, the health syste…

>The unanswered question of the GP is why you'd expect only 1% of the US population to be infect? Ioannidis addresses this in the article. Extensive community spread is actually unlikely to be the case for this virus, epidemic development is hard to discern from simply increasing rates in testing and sensitive populations seeking testing, and maybe most importantly there is little evidence that lockdowns and other ex…

But talk about lack of data. This is looking at the spread of a different virus - a virus that certainly does not have the infectiousness of the Covid virus. So the this pure speculation.

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

#140

Post by scarmig »

Barrin92 wrote: post #103
defen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.” Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? Where does the idea of 1% come fro…

>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…

That's a false dichotomy. The situation could also be that access to treatment is a huge factor in mortality, and that Italy and Wuhan faced a large enough caseload that people were unable to get healthcare, which drove up mortality significantly.

This is a much more likely factor than the idea that Germany and South Korea are somehow 10x-30x more effective in testing their population than Italy.

Post reply on HN