Live data from Hacker News

Coronavirus and Credibility

paulgraham.com

281–290 of 968 posts

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although true, using it doesn't add anything to analysis of corona virus specifically. The issue of exponential growth is of relevance in response to those saying that the number of deaths (insert the inplicit 'so far' here) is much less than from infuenza (annually.) It is not a 'fixation' to expose the irrelevance of that line of thinking. More generally, the issue is a combination of the facts that this virus is…

The idea that viruses always grow exponentially until they reach total saturation of the population comes from mathematical models that have never successfully modelled any real epidemic, ever. It doesn't come from experience of real diseases in nature, many of which were predicted by epidemiologists to grow to enormous proportions and yet - even in the absence of control measures - that isn't what happens. It seems…

Nobody is able to test all or even most of their population with tests overwhelmingly concentrated among those either likely to be infected or at least exposed one would expect the proportion of positive tests to be a function of the testing methodology rather than a fiction of its prevalence in the population. If for example a group is only testing those already experiencing severe symptoms and had a 93% positive rate what would it even mean for the proportion of positive tests to increase exponentially?

What we are supposing is instead that the number of people who are presently infected will increase exponentially IF we don't adopt measures to decrease the spread. This is actually what you saw in the initial period and what you would be seeing now if we did nothing extraordinary to decrease the spread. If you look at the 1918 flu epidemic it ultimately infected 1/3 of the population. It is utterly unclear to me why you imagine your understanding is better than that of the experts. It would seem you yourself are guilty of the same sin you ascribe to programmers? From your animus towards the profession are you perhaps a manager of same? If so you seem to have contracted at least one of their faults.

> politicians have in the blink of an eye ceded power to a tiny cabal of (primarily) epidemiologists.

This literally isn't real.

The politicians are indeed at fault for the poor response. We cede to them substantial funds and powers to both prepare for and response to situations just like this. In fact the pentagon prepared a report on literally just this exact crisis in 2017 that called out among other things a lack of supplies. We opted to do nothing of import between now and today. In the crucial early days of this crisis instead of instituting effective measures we were busy first ignoring reports of it and then publicly claiming it is a hoax. If we aren't brave and clear sighted enough to even ascribe blame how are we to do better next time?

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#282
Tangential regarding Dr. Drew. I remember watching Loveline on MTV and hearing it a bit on radio when I was younger, and remember thinking how progressive him and Adam Corolla sounded. When I discovered much later that they're still going on podcasts, I've tuned in a couple times over the last decade but usually wind up cringing or disagreeing. I used to think Adam Corolla was mostly funny and made some good points, now I find him pretty distasteful. What happened, did they shift in their outlooks/politics/behaviors/etc, or did I and I'm just realizing how they've always been? It just seems like as I get older, many people in the generations ahead of me are getting crazier, and it makes me worried that at some point I'm going to lose my grip on reality. How does this happen?

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#283

If you're getting your "news" from CNN/Fox/MSNBC, or "gathering evidence" to promote one the two permitted narratives, that's your problem. This is stuff is low effort "Presidential Level Politics" 24x7. Real news died when reporters stopped having to craft a story so that the Associated Press or United Press International picked it up and made it available to the varied local newspapers of America, both liberal and…

If anything, with the rise of targeted advertising and paywalls, this kind of thing was encouraged. Why write articles hoping they get picked up on their merits when you can just pitch partisan articles to partisan people and get the desired home-run every single time?

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#284

Roussel et al., “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data.”, Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 19:105947, “Under these conditions, there does not seem to be a significant difference between the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries and that of common coronaviruses (χ2 test, P=0.11). Of course, the major flaw in this study is that the percentage of deaths attributable to the virus is not determined, but this is the case…

> “Under these conditions, there does not seem to be a significant difference between the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries and that of common coronaviruses (χ2 test, P=0.11). Of course, the major flaw in this study is that the percentage of deaths attributable to the virus is not determined, but this is the case for all studies reporting respiratory virus infections, including SARS-CoV-2.”

> “Under these conditions, and all other things being equal, SARS-CoV-2 infection cannot be described as being statistically more severe than infection with other coronaviruses in common circulation.”

> “Finally, in OECD countries, SARS-CoV-2 does not seem to be deadlier than other circulating viruses.”

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#285

When mainstream media has been pushing pernicious narratives and outright lies for many years, I see why people would be skeptic about their claims. Unfortunately, most people don't have the means (technical knowledge, time) to appropriately asses the real danger of this situation, so they have two options: - Believe the liars. - Don't believe the liars. It turns out, the liars weren't lying this time.

Well, it doesn't help much either to put a mainstream entertainment persona as the president of the USA.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#286

If you're getting your "news" from CNN/Fox/MSNBC, or "gathering evidence" to promote one the two permitted narratives, that's your problem. This is stuff is low effort "Presidential Level Politics" 24x7. Real news died when reporters stopped having to craft a story so that the Associated Press or United Press International picked it up and made it available to the varied local newspapers of America, both liberal and…

You're right. And I'd add that modern journalism has effectively become activist journalism across the board. Modern journalists are primarily ideologues - and that is the origin of the partisan spin on almost every single news outlet, especially online.

This is also why credibility in media is at all time lows. Most people are politically moderate and they're waking up to the inescapable spin. This behavior is also dangerous because it provides some justification for the infamous "enemy of the people" quote. But I think partisan reporting has become so commonplace in the industry that most journalists don't realise what they're doing - either that or they believe the end justifies the means. But when the means back away at the credibility that reporting must be based on, you are destroying your institution and possibly taking society with you.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#287

> They didn't realize there was any danger in making false predictions. Is there any danger for them? PG seems to have very idealistic view of politics. As far as I know, any amount of fact checking in politics don't change political views. Will Fox News lose any viewers over this? Politicians may lose jobs because bad economy, but will they lose votes because they were wrong and ignorant? H. L. Mencken wrote: > No o…

Bear in mind it's not just Fox News which got this pandemic wrong. "It's no worse than the flu," "this won't be a global pandemic," "you don't need to wear a mask unless you are symptomatic or caring for someone who is," and other 100% wrong takes were also pushed by Vox, NYT, WaPo, and even WHO & CDC long past when they should have been.

Which is one of the reasons why I wish we, collectively as a society, would stop blaming the blame game in this crisis. Almost everyone got this wrong.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#288
post #60
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they work with remote teams around the world, including China & Europe, and saw first-hand what was coming.

Every major bank in NYC has trading desks across the world, including Asian markets. Shouldn't they have seen it coming as well?

Not if their salaries depended on not understanding...

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#289

If you're getting your "news" from CNN/Fox/MSNBC, or "gathering evidence" to promote one the two permitted narratives, that's your problem. This is stuff is low effort "Presidential Level Politics" 24x7. Real news died when reporters stopped having to craft a story so that the Associated Press or United Press International picked it up and made it available to the varied local newspapers of America, both liberal and…

Agreed. Unfortunately now it's more like picking a sport team ("Team CNN" or "Team Fox"), or Apple vs/ Google vs/ Microsoft than actually finding, or learning about, facts. Tribalism at it's finest.

The only alternative I've found (I'm open to helpful suggestions) is to ignore that noise and read actual briefings and original sources.

But, that defeats the point of news being an honest and straight forward source of a summary. And it takes a lot of time. And doesn't always end in rewarding information (lies/bias in original sources exist too - eg: watching hours upon hours of live impeachment hearings was full of lies/half-truths/obfuscation coming from all sides).

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's amusing to be is how anyone can look at the incompetence of governments across the world, and conclude they'd be capable of any kind of organized conspiracy against the general population.

Things like wholesale NSA data collection were organized conspiracies against the population. There are plenty of examples, even just considering the US.

Strange that you got downvoted. NSA collection of American data fits any reasonable definition of "conspiracy against the population" that I can think of.
Post reply on HN