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

Coronavirus and Credibility

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 968 posts

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#901

Post by rpiguy »

ben_w wrote: post #857
concordDance wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5% to 30% of the world dying? Yeah, that's bollocks. At least 80% of people don't even notice they have it (so the BBC has told me today). Only 5% of cases require ICU, let alone 5% of infections (and if Imperial modelling is right that number is far lower). ICU saves at most half of the people who go in based on CDC numbers. I have not seen any modelling by any source of even the slightest repute suggesting a 2 bill…

The ICU is fine (fsvo) if, and only if , everyone doesn’t get it all at the same time. """Mississippi currently has the highest COVID-19 hospitalization rate in the nation, at 31 percent, according to states’ health department data gathered by The COVID Tracking Project. """ - https://mississippitoday.org/2020/04/01/mississippi-has-nati...

The hospitalization rate is dependent on the denominator, how many people you test.

Even NYC is doing just fine. Number of beds needed was overestimated, Cuomo himself said they have enough respirators, and the hospital ship has a handful of patients on it.

The unnecessary panic diverts attention away from real problems like lack of PPE. We ordered GM to make respirators when what we really need, even in NYC, is PPE.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#902

Post by btilly »

csomar wrote: post #869
btilly wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree on that. The purposes of sampling are to find out how deadly the disease is, and to find out if herd immunity exists. But we have good evidence that it is likely to be deadly enough to justify stay-at-home orders while community spread exists. And have strong circumstantial evidence that only a small fraction of the population has had it. Therefore breaking quarantine for a random subset of the population…

> But we have good evidence that it is likely to be deadly enough to justify stay-at-home orders while community spread exists. I don't think we agree on that and it's relative. Not all people agree on stay-at-home/confinement orders. I personally see them as an authoritarian measure and I think everyone should judge for himself whether he wants to expose himself to COVID-19 risks or not. As to the point of determini…

I don't think we agree on that and it's relative. Not all people agree on stay-at-home/confinement orders. I personally see them as an authoritarian measure and I think everyone should judge for himself whether he wants to expose himself to COVID-19 risks or not.

It is in the nature of public health that "everyone should judge for himself" guarantees epidemics. Because like it or not, the choices that you make for yourself affect me. You may decide that you'll survive so you don't alter your behavior. But that spreads the disease and makes it more likely that my immunocompromised sister dies.

The result is that public health provides the most clear-cut cases where we have to choose between individual rights and the public good. But we are loathe to make that choice. Therefore it presents us with a series of easily debated moral quandaries.

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267241/ for some of the relevant history.

As to the point of determining if COVID-19 is deadly enough or not, I don't see how we can do that without sampling the society. It's not clear, right now, if the only cases are the ones that are diagnosed or 50% of society.

Both extreme statements are exceedingly unlikely.

I had based my comment on published articles estimating an infection fatality rate of 0.4%-1.4% with a best estimate around 0.66%. But the full story is complicated. Work your way through https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-... to understand the current data, estimates, limitations of various research and so on. It is..messy.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#903

Post by thu2111 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #281
thu2111 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ra…

with tests overwhelmingly concentrated among those either likely to be infected

Even the highest positive rates I've seen (in the UK where the testing situation is dire) are only 30%. In other countries with more tests it's around 15% and stable over long periods.

If the number of infected were truly growing that fast, then you'd see the proportion of positive tests go up and up until negative tests were hardly happening, but that isn't close to what's seen on the ground.

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

That's not what policymakers are supposing. If that were true there wouldn't be a global run on ventilators, which assumes enormous growth over case load today.

This literally isn't real.

That's not much of a response. Where are there politicians not saying their decisions are just guided by the science? The only places where politicians even pushed back slightly on epidemiologists are Brazil and - briefly - the USA.

At this time what epidemiologists say should be done, is done, no questions asked. In Denmark they are even restricting speech to stop people criticising the adopted measures, or so it's said. Look at what happened to my post above - even investigating or criticising those currently making the decisions is suddenly penalised.

A tiny number of academics with no track record of accuracy have obtained enormous power now. If they say lock down, countries lock down. If they say close the borders, the borders are closed. If they say open up, countries open up.

It's right and proper that such people be subject to the same scrutiny as normal politicians are.

As for politicians having done nothing, I don't think that's fair. Does the USA not have large stockpiles of ventilators and masks? Perhaps unusable in the end, but that level of detail is not for politicians, only civil servants. As for beds, well, even assuming the modellers are right no healthcare system in the world can have tens of thousands of ICU beds empty, sitting for a once in a century pandemic. Politicians who tried to have such levels of slack would soon be replaced by others who cared more about utilisation. I don't think there's much to say about them at this time; for better or worse they've taken a back seat.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#904

Post by rpiguy »

concordDance wrote: post #850
ben_w wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At best, that’s “straw Vulcan” rationality. The emotional reaction of a crowd is an important part of any world model. At worst, without all the anxiety you’re opposing, too many people catch it at the same time and the death rate rises to match the hospitalisation rate. When that happens you’re not talking 75 million dead, you’re talking 375 million to 2.25 billion dead depending on which of the enormous range of ho…

5% to 30% of the world dying? Yeah, that's bollocks. At least 80% of people don't even notice they have it (so the BBC has told me today). Only 5% of cases require ICU, let alone 5% of infections (and if Imperial modelling is right that number is far lower). ICU saves at most half of the people who go in based on CDC numbers. I have not seen any modelling by any source of even the slightest repute suggesting a 2 bill…

Have you noticed that the same statisticians who claim that 80% of people don’t know they have it fail to multiply the denominator when reporting statistics like mortality rate?

For example here in NJ we have about 40000 confirmed and tested cases and 1000 deaths. The mortality rate for our state is about 2%.

But if 80% of cases have no symptoms and are not tested, then the denominator should be 5x higher.

The real mortality rate is .4%

The same as a bad flu, but less than many flu seasons.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#905

Post by Pils »

belorn wrote: post #811
Pils wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the quote from the Snopes article: > Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa, they can’t even count. No they can’t. They can’t count their votes. > O…

Lets go directly to polifact then: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/17/instagram-... "The video makes it seem like Trump is calling the disease itself a hoax, which he hasn’t done. The words are Trump’s, but the editing is Biden’s." "Trump’s comments feed into a conspiracy theory that claims Democrats and the media are fabricating the threat of COVID-19 to hurt the economy and, by extension, the preside…

What does a factcheck of spliced Biden campaign video have to do with the issue at hand? The quotes I pulled were directly from the transcript.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#906

Post by csense »

jsnk wrote: post #728
crusso wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

however one political quarter stayed in denial much longer Now you're splitting hairs. You know who the first politician in the USA who was banging the drums in alarm about Wuhan and the coronavirus? Tom Cotton. Republican Senator. Do you support him now? Does his early conviction of the severity of this event put you behind him and everyone who echoed his concerns? Are you likewise now opposed to the people who were…

I'm glad you brought Tom Cotton up here. He was one of the few individuals who was able to ask the right questions at the right time. And yet, when he did that, all kinds of mainstream media including WaPo came out saying he was repeating a "coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked". https://archive.vn/TG8zN#selection-999.29-999.84 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronaviru... https:/…

Some HN readers who seem to be knowledgeable about genetics were discussing the spread 73 days ago [1]. If you don't want to read the whole thread, I'll also link to a couple specific sub-threads [2] [3].

However, I will note that a colleague of mine saw the virology institute's location change on Google Maps around this time. Free software legend Eric S Raymond mentioned this on his blog as well [4].

I'm pretty sure the Google Maps thing is a sign that the Chinese leadership heard these bioweapon rumors, and figured the best way to combat them was to require Google to lie about the institute's reported location.

There are plenty of ridiculous rumors on the Internet, why would the Chinese government react so strongly to this particular one?

It could be because the Chinese leadership has something they're trying to hide. But in China things are often censored all over the place with little rhyme or reason as well. "We know this rumor's false and ridiculous, any serious scientist knows it came from some country bumpkin eating an improperly cooked bat, but this rumor could potentially be destabilizing, so let's force Google to tell this lie for us" is certainly a way the Chinese government might think.

Is it created in a lab?

The Google maps thing is pretty weak evidence. It could be explained by the "oh crap people are catching on, we'd better make Google help with the coverup" hypothesis, but it's equally well explained by the "we know it's false, but we'll censor things willy-nilly because we're China and that's what we do" hypothesis.

I don't know enough about mol bio to really understand the genetic sequences.

To summarize: The evidence seems to be inconclusive, but certainly consistent with the possibility the virus is a Chinese bio-weapon. "Coronavirus is a Chinese bio-weapon that somehow accidentally escaped" is a possibly true hypothesis. There's not nearly enough evidence to say for sure. But it's a reasonable possibility, not tin-foil hat territory.

Suggesting it was let out on purpose probably does get pretty close to tin-foil hat territory; it seems hard to figure out a sane and reasonable motive for unleashing this on the world, without also requiring some much bigger, more complex conspiracy (which greatly weakens the prior probability of the hypothesis).

If it is lab-created, it probably escaped by a mistake, or someone not following the rules (e.g. the janitor who's supposed to burn the dead infected research bats sold them to a market instead to make an extra buck).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22146446

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22147320

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22147369

[4] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8587

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#907

Post by jfrankamp »

mnl wrote: post #702
jfrankamp wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States military could best be used to fight this by destroying (with warning) global fossil fuel infrastructure that wasn't voluntarily closed, bit by bit with a decade long schedule. The announcement alone would prompt a massive shift in energy production, use, investment etc. Our own legacy infrastructure would also have to be on the list. Call it a Paris accord with teeth. It will never happen, because…

Wow... So the military of the state that has contributed most to the global cumulative CO2 emissions (25%) can "solve" the problem with indiscriminate attacks and war crimes everywhere else now. Fascinating. Are people forgetting about this practice of thinking about their idea at least for 30 seconds before starting to type?

Targeting unoccupied fossil fuel infrastructure on an announced schedule is indiscriminate? War crimes for killing an oil derrick?

That is fascinating to me. We know the Paris accord cannot work without enforcement. It is economically disadvantageous to go first. As I said, it will never happen. We don't take the threat seriously, we don't believe it is an existential threat.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#908

Post by leereeves »

moultano wrote: post #886
leereeves wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My quote is literally what she said. (She later claimed it was "dry humor plus sarcasm")[1]. Perhaps she meant something more like what you said. It doesn't matter. "The world is going to end if we don't take action within 12 years" is also false, and not at all what the IPCC report says. When O'Rourke said something similar, the AP fact checked the claim:[2] > THE FACTS: There is no scientific consensus, much less u…

You don't appear to have read the things you linked. The argument Ebi is making is that we shouldn't give up if we don't hit that 12 year deadline, because it's continuous, and things keep getting even worse . She's trying to communicate that there are worse things than 1.5C that we could still prevent.

There are worse things than 1.5C that we could still prevent because 1.5C isn't the "end of the world".

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#909

Post by op03 »

csense wrote: post #906
jsnk wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you brought Tom Cotton up here. He was one of the few individuals who was able to ask the right questions at the right time. And yet, when he did that, all kinds of mainstream media including WaPo came out saying he was repeating a "coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked". https://archive.vn/TG8zN#selection-999.29-999.84 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronaviru... https:/…

Some HN readers who seem to be knowledgeable about genetics were discussing the spread 73 days ago [1]. If you don't want to read the whole thread, I'll also link to a couple specific sub-threads [2] [3]. However, I will note that a colleague of mine saw the virology institute's location change on Google Maps around this time. Free software legend Eric S Raymond mentioned this on his blog as well [4]. I'm pretty sure…

> Why would the Chinese govt react so strongly

They react to all kinds of irrelevant bullshit strongly all the time. It's a gigantic unimaginative bureaucracy. It could very well be some peon 18 levels down doing something done 200 times prior, in response to some news article some other peon has classified as western propaganda.

Are they going to come out and admit that?

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#910

Post by jfrankamp »

tlrobinson wrote: post #691
jfrankamp wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States military could best be used to fight this by destroying (with warning) global fossil fuel infrastructure that wasn't voluntarily closed, bit by bit with a decade long schedule. The announcement alone would prompt a massive shift in energy production, use, investment etc. Our own legacy infrastructure would also have to be on the list. Call it a Paris accord with teeth. It will never happen, because…

That sounds like a good way to start World War III. The top oil producing countries after the US are: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, China, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Iran, Kuwait https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6

All signatories of the Paris accord. All are nominally thought to be rapidly transforming their economies in response to an existential crisis.

"including high polluters such as China, the US, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Indonesia and Mexico, which generate more than half the world's greenhouse gas emissions, will somehow drive down their carbon pollution voluntarily and assiduously without any binding enforcement mechanism"

What is the binding enforcement mechanism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Post reply on HN