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

On “Armchair Epidemiology”

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#21

Post by threatofrain »

tjr225 wrote: post #2

If this current situation has taught me anything it is that the internet is a mush of armchair garbage and it’s overwhelming to decipher- yes even what I’m typing now. The whole thing has me desperate to ignore everyone and read a book. What a joke; to think we are all somehow experts.

Most people don't have a with an expert, so they are still left out on their own, having to decipher the world as it comes.

When you don't have relationships with a technical community, there's no interesting anchor to stop you from gyrating with the news of the day.

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#22

Post by jasonhansel »

> A viral article implores us to “flatten the curve of armchair epidemiology”—that is, to listen only to authoritive sources like the CDC, not random people spouting on social media.

> This was notable to me for being the diametric opposite of the actual lesson of the past two months.

So, because some (unspecified, unnamed) experts weren't able to predict the future with perfect accuracy, we should give equal credence to "random people" instead?

Medical professionals, scientists, and public health experts are still the best available source of knowledge about preventing the growth of this pandemic.

Spreading the message that we should ignore epidemiologists is wrong at best and dangerous at worst.

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#23

Post by kennywinker »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #12

This is a topic that seems to be in a perverse conflict of interests. A. Politicians have interests representing themselves as well as their country, and thus have given dishonest advice (masks don't help) with an ulterior motive (save them for hospital), downplayed the problem, and covered up the number of cases. B. I think a lot of actually qualified experts (doctors, scientists) to think the public can't handle th…

> Social distancing is a drop in the bucket

This is a frustrating and sad thing to read here. Social distancing WILL save lives. Even if it is a "drop in the bucket", and I don't believe that to be true, once hospitals are at capacity every SINGLE severe case that social distancing prevents or delays is potentially a life saved.

> ventilators make a tiny difference

Would you say that to the families who have a loved one on a ventilator right now?

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#24

Post by zozbot234 »

empath75 wrote: post #20
elchief wrote: post #5

Who should we believe, then, the WHO? They told us China had it under control, and not to wear masks

The math. We had the fatality rate and r0. As soon as it was obvious that it spread out of control on China, it was just a matter of time. You didn’t need to be an epidemiologist, you just needed a high school maths education.

The thing is, it didn't quite spread out of control on China. There were a heck of a lot of cases in Wuhan and Hubei, and markedly fewer cases elsewhere. We might guess that this is perhaps just a side-effect of exponential dynamics, but I'm not quite sure about that.

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#25

Post by knzhou »

elchief wrote: post #5

Who should we believe, then, the WHO? They told us China had it under control, and not to wear masks

The WHO has been urging everybody to get prepared for 10 weeks now, while constantly giving the same good advice (test, trace, lockdown, social distance).

People are pretending this is all WHO's fault because they said some wrong stuff in early January, when the correct conclusions were not at all obvious. And they've been completely correct and transparent since late January. It's almost April now. At this point, it's just a worn out excuse.

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#26

Post by whatever1 »

modzu wrote: post #7
whatever1 wrote: post #4

Let's talk first about the domain experts, professors in prestigious universities, that were reassuring the public that COVID-19 is no way more fatal than the seasonal flu [1]. The same moment that the ICUs in Italy and Spain were already overwhelmed and the physicians could not find the necessary protective equipment to keep saving lives. Are there gonna be any legal repercussions to these? [1] https://www.wsj.com/a…

what are you talking about? that article is contemporary, they havent been proven wrong.

Art can be contemporary. Science not. We are currently looking at 200k deaths in the USA [1] from COVID-19, in the good scenario. How is it even compatible with their 0.01% mortality rates? Have we forgotten how to divide numbers?

[1]https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/490138-birx-says...

P.S. They even make the claim that COVID-19 has 1/10th the mortality of seasonal flu :facepalm:

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#27

Post by naringas »

tjr225 wrote: post #2

If this current situation has taught me anything it is that the internet is a mush of armchair garbage and it’s overwhelming to decipher- yes even what I’m typing now. The whole thing has me desperate to ignore everyone and read a book. What a joke; to think we are all somehow experts.

I agree, I still cannot make up my mind about masks...

It seems like "back in the day" people trusted the experts, becuase well, there weren't many alternatives (?); but now thanks to the internet everyone can google for a while and feel like they have a worthwhile opinion.

It seems like now it's possible to find an expert (and/or data) to justify any opinion.

I am not saying this is bad, but that it's just different. The game has changed.

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#28

Post by makomk »

zozbot234 wrote: post #24
empath75 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math. We had the fatality rate and r0. As soon as it was obvious that it spread out of control on China, it was just a matter of time. You didn’t need to be an epidemiologist, you just needed a high school maths education.

The thing is, it didn't quite spread out of control on China. There were a heck of a lot of cases in Wuhan and Hubei, and markedly fewer cases elsewhere. We might guess that this is perhaps just a side-effect of exponential dynamics, but I'm not quite sure about that.

At a guess, this is perhaps a consequence of the fact that the entire rest of China has been treating everyone from Hubei like a plague carrier since January regardless of whether they've even been there in years. Any country that didn't, at the very least, quarantine people who'd been in Hubei plus their close contacts back then probably can't expect the same results, and even that plus contract tracing and testing plus social distancing only seems to hve delayed the inevitable.

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#29

Post by adnzzzzZ »

knzhou wrote: post #25
elchief wrote: post #5

Who should we believe, then, the WHO? They told us China had it under control, and not to wear masks

The WHO has been urging everybody to get prepared for 10 weeks now, while constantly giving the same good advice (test, trace, lockdown, social distance). People are pretending this is all WHO's fault because they said some wrong stuff in early January, when the correct conclusions were not at all obvious . And they've been completely correct and transparent since late January. It's almost April now. At this point, i…

They literally just posted this a few days ago https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243171683067777024 when we know it's false and that masks do offer some level of personal protection on top of making everyone around you safer, given that you can infect others while asymptomatic.

Re: On “Armchair Epidemiology”

#30

Post by jasonhansel »

jasonhansel wrote: post #22

> A viral article implores us to “flatten the curve of armchair epidemiology”—that is, to listen only to authoritive sources like the CDC, not random people spouting on social media. > This was notable to me for being the diametric opposite of the actual lesson of the past two months. So, because some (unspecified, unnamed) experts weren't able to predict the future with perfect accuracy, we should give equal credenc…

(I'm sure that epidemiologists reading posts like the OP feel a lot like software devs reading opinion columns about cybersecurity or cryptocurrencies.)
Post reply on HN