Coronavirus and Credibility • Hacker News Board

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#631

Post by concordDance » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #594

concordDance wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID-19 just isn't that important on the global scale. Car accidents last year almost certainly cost way more QALYs* than COVID-19 will this year (particularly if Imperial College in their 13th report is right about how badly undercounted the case numbers are). * Car accidents affect most ages and health levels relatively equally, while COVID-19 mostly kills the old and infirm who are unhealthy, with poor quality of…

You guys are still doing this..?

1.3 million people a year killed by car crashes, biased moderately towards the young (around 3 to 1 is comparing a 30 year old and a 60 year old).

In contrast, COVID-19 has a fatality rate that looks roughly like the normal yearly death rate for the UK (so you'd expect as many people to die at least partially of COVID-19 as of every other cause combined this year)... Making it around 50 million people killed if everyone got it (many won't) and if the world age distribution matched the UK.

But the average person killed by COVID-19 is a lot closer to death. Even if you just go by age the actuarial tables put for remaining life years, those killed will average a fifth as many years as those killed by car accidents.

Hmm

Ok, maybe COVID-19 WILL cause more QALY loss after all. But it's certainly not entirely clearcut.

Particularly if Imperial is right about >15% of Spain having already been infected (which would imply a MUCH lower death rate than that commonly reported given that Spain has only recorded 13 thousand deaths and has already passed their peak), in which case cars last year might still "win".

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#632

Post by lbeltrame » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

drummer wrote: post #244

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…

Note that this study is from Didier Raoult's group, the same doctor who brought out the (controversial, because not enough data at this point) claims on cloroquine - while I have no interest in defending or criticizing the work, some may want to keep this in mind.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#633

Post by pjscott » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

zzzeek wrote: post #349

Might PG have included the critical point of this video is that they are all conservative voices? Right, that would be too "divisive".

The voices on this particular video are all conservative because it's a clip from the Daily Show, not an unbiased sample, and of course they're going to mainly pick on the other side. People on the right are making similar lists of grievances against left-wing media, and if you looked exclusively at those, you'd get the impression that downplaying the coronavirus is a liberal thing.

(My own pet interpretation is that political news reporting is a circus, reality-adjacent at best, and most journalists leave you worse-informed for having listened to them regardless of their party affiliation.)

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#634

Post by 0x8BADF00D » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

Making a correct prediction is difficult. Especially if you see something the vast majority of people don’t see. It takes quite a bit of risk to make a contrarian prediction, which is why the payouts are higher if the contrarian prediction comes true.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#635

Post by lliamander » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

tfehring wrote: post #571

lliamander wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go pal[0] [0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 edit: added missing word.

Here's the passage from that paper that explains the 0.3% figure from the abstract: From publication and citation data, Anderegg et al. (2010) selected 908 of 1,372 climate researchers, defined as scientists who had published at least twenty climate papers and had either signed petitions opposing or supporting the IPCC’s positions or had co-authored IPCC reports. Of these, 97–98 % endorsed the standard definition tha…

The question here is whether that 97% accept that humans are the main cause of global warming, which is arguably not supported by the evidence presented in the Cook paper.

To quote Friedman in a follow-up post:

> My objection was that the 97% figure lumped together categories 1-3, when only category 1 fitted Cook's "main cause." Categories 2 and 3 were papers saying or implying that human action was a cause—"contributed to" in the language of the example. Category 1 contained 64 papers, or 1.6%, not 97%.[0]

Which does not mean that there isn't a large consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming. What we can infer is:

1. The Cook paper is not evidence of that consensus

2. That Cook himself is perhaps not a reliable source.

[0]https://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-cooks-respo...

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#636

Post by kingaillas » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

drocer88 wrote: post #275

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…

It's the effects of the free market on journalism. The drive for profit means boosting ad revenue which in turns requires drawing an audience... actual journalism isn't profitable enough.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#637

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #601

jacquesm wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being wrong and being in charge are different than just being wrong. Responsibility should come at a price.

I'd be all for holding politicians in charge accountable, but that's where everyone gets squishy depending upon who they support? One guy's being wrong becomes another guy's "not that big of a deal". By what metric will you measure "being wrong" for this COVID-19 pandemic? A super cut of video clips showing a reluctance to believe uncertain information coming out of China? Death rate compared to other OECD countries?…

When you are not in charge you can say whatever you want, it won't kill people. So that's why it matters. It's not about who you support. "The Buck Stops Here".

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#638

Post by kgwgk » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

lbeltrame wrote: post #626

kgwgk wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Testing in Italy is insufficient to tell us this. It's not about "testing in Italy": "In Lombardy – despite the region being under lockdown since March 9 – more than one in every 1,000 of the entire population have already been hospitalised due to coronavirus."

But we don't know the actual amount of people which were infected in Italy, because some of these (a sizable percentage) only reported fevers, and perhaps didn't even think about having SARS-CoV-2 in their bodies. An acquaintance's partner suspects having got it, because after two days (two days, not weeks) of very mild fever (~37.5C) he was hit by anosmia. An ex-coworker also mentioned "a horribly strong fever" with…

You’re missing the point. We know for sure that in Lombardy the hospitalisation rate was higher than 1 in 1000 people infected.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#639

Post by rriepe » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

shakermakr wrote: post #565

mempko wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been thousands of predictions, but only a subset of them have consensus. The IPCC is that consensus across varying stakeholders. It's looking like the consensus has been too conservative with it's predictions and that's the scary part.

Science and proof is not based on consensus. It’s not a vote. A best bet. Until then we should of course act towards the most probable act and cause but remain healthy in our skepticism of the effect of global warming and our faith in computer modeling of inherently chaotic systems.

I see this sentiment a lot. It seems really obvious to me that no, science is actually about consensus now. If you disagree, you're shunned and labeled "dangerous."

Maybe this is in conflict with what science should be. But it's also definitely what science is now.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#640

Post by ggreer » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

avip wrote: post #296

pdonis wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the background global warming is a much greater threat to human life Before making such a confident statement, I would recommend re-reading this particular statement in pg's essay... "These people constantly make false predictions, and get away with it, because the things they make predictions about either have mushy enough outcomes that they can bluster their way out of trouble, or happen so far in the future t…

Could you share some of these confident predictions regarding global warming?

Here's an AP article from 31 years ago[1].

> A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

...

> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

Since that article was published, atmospheric CO2 has gone from 355ppm to 410ppm (a 15% increase). Global surface temperature has risen 0.6°C since 1989 (1.1°F). Sea level has risen by 8 centimeters.

I realize the UN official wasn't a scientist or an expert, but neither are many of the people quoted in articles about climate change today. Global warming is a bad thing, but it's not as bad as a lot of media & activists are portraying it. It's not an existential risk.

1. https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0