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

A case for ending lockdown

ryankemper.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 381 posts

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#291

Post by krapp »

rootusrootus wrote: post #288
cbHXBY1D wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It would be interesting on HN if we developed a habit of interrogating everyone for their credentials and shouting them down immediately if they're just another software engineer. That would be horrible but anyone who is a specialist in a field knows how consistently wrong the HN hivemind is on any subject outside the realm of software. This place is perhaps the biggest community of people who overestimate their kno…

The encouraging thing about HN is that much of the community seems aware of the propensity for software engineers to think they have the answer to all the problems of the world. IMO, acknowledging that and not taking ourselves too seriously helps keep this forum from completely degenerating into another Reddit.

>IMO, acknowledging that and not taking ourselves too seriously helps keep this forum from completely degenerating into another Reddit.

Ironic, because many people here seem to believe not taking ourselves too seriously will lead to this forum degenerating into another Reddit.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#292

Post by mistermann »

__s wrote: post #228
ModernMech wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My other favorite example is y2k. New Years 2000 came and went and the world didn’t end. Was y2k overblown hysteria, or did we take it seriously and do the work necessary to prevent catastrophic system failure? Probably a little hysteria involved, sure, but I don’t think anyone here would argue we should have just let systems go unpatched and hoped for the best.

An issue is when there's an issue which people with information are trying to work around, word gets out & the risk becomes exaggerated to societal collapse. Nevermind that a plague could come & kill half the population & society wouldn't collapse. So when people get the idea that we're trying to stop society from collapsing, they expect we'll still see society almost collapse. But instead we're averting a much lower…

> Basically we need to moderate both opinions which effectively work together: the "there's no problem to begin with" group feels validated by the "the world is ending" group being way off the mark.

I agree. Do you have any idea what approach could be taken to accomplish this though, even where dealing with a single, otherwise logical person?

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#293

Post by pinkfoot »

xienze wrote: post #244
ausbah wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a good example of people saying the response was overblown, because the response had its intended effect

Then why, after lockdowns were in place, did we build all those field hospitals and ventilators that never got used? I suspect it’s because we expected the “with-lockdown” numbers to be far worse than they actually ended up being. In other words, there was an overreaction, only the degree to which we overreacted is in debate.

This question has an answer:

Hospitals and other resources take a finite time to construct and they can only be constructed in linear time. That is to say, the number of new hospitals is not a function of the number of existing hospitals.

Now, in contrast the virus grows exponentially and is further aided by a period before symptoms appear and by asymptomatic carriers.

As such, when it overwhelms you there is very little you can do to catch in the middle of the fight up without taking draconian methods and accepting enormous number of deaths. Italy and NYC.

As such, the prudent course of action - especially for a wealthy country - is to build the additional hospitals and capacity ahead of time, even if - horror - they are never used.

A similar comparison is the ridiculous amount of military hardware that is procured and mostly never used.

Edit: spelling

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#294

Post by pinkfoot »

logicchains wrote: post #253
wheelerwj wrote: post #176

> I’m a software / site reliability engineer okay, thanks. Seriously, the list of scientist and medical organizations advising through this period is so long, I don't know why anyone who isn't at equally experienced tries to counter-claim their insights. I'm not saying we shouldn't do our own research and arrive at our own conclusion, but if you arrive at a different conclusion, you're almost certainly the one whose…

>Seriously, the list of scientist and medical organizations advising through this period is so long, I don't know why anyone who isn't at equally experienced tries to counter-claim their insights. The average scientist or medical organisation has no more economic knowledge than a layman. The costs of the lockdown are primarily economic. We couldn't possibly make the best decisions by listening to people who are only…

Why is a intelligent, qualified, experienced team of epidemiologists "only in a position to identify the (medical) benefits of the lockdown and not the costs."

After all, you were able to recognise both parameters?

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#295

Post by mistermann »

rootusrootus wrote: post #213
ashtonkem wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve started explicitly telling people in my life that I’m not interested in their non-expert opinions when they weigh in on when we should open up.

Do you tell that to everyone, as soon as they open their mouth with a thought, or only the folks who suggest we should ease the lockdown sooner? It would be interesting on HN if we developed a habit of interrogating everyone for their credentials and shouting them down immediately if they're just another software engineer.

> It would be interesting on HN if we developed a habit of interrogating everyone for their credentials and shouting them down immediately if they're just another software engineer.

HN is a rich source of ironic behavior indeed.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#296

Post by wool_gather »

Minor49er wrote: post #236
wheelerwj wrote: post #176

> I’m a software / site reliability engineer okay, thanks. Seriously, the list of scientist and medical organizations advising through this period is so long, I don't know why anyone who isn't at equally experienced tries to counter-claim their insights. I'm not saying we shouldn't do our own research and arrive at our own conclusion, but if you arrive at a different conclusion, you're almost certainly the one whose…

This attitude reminds me of the story of Mats Järlström who presented a case about Oregon traffic lights being flawed, was written off for not being a professional, then was proven right a year later. Appeals to authority are never good to do blindly. If different conclusions are reached from two parties, then the conversations must continue if they are legitimately grounded.

While I don't entirely disagree, there's a trap here, which is that being open to all comers also allows (sometimes dangerously) time-wasting cranks/fools and trolls/provocateurs through the door. Filtering below "credentialed" but above "Dunning-Kruger" and "willfully misleading" is not simple.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#297

Post by icebraining »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #181
icebraining wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have enough people throwing guesses around, inevitably some are bound to get it right.

What is the probability that my guess is going to be right? I did some little thinking and modelling of my own late Feb, and reached the correct conclusions by following a simple exponential model, having very basic understanding of epidemiology, and being mindful of error bars (mostly ones created by me being a layman in the field). On the other hand, I trusted WHO and CDC on masks around February; even posted thing…

What did you get right in late Feb that the WHO and such were still wrong about? I feel like by that time it was already fairly clear from their communications that this was going global and heavily affect everyone.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#298

Post by ryanwaggoner »

areyousure wrote: post #287
gbrown wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, if you model New York with an appropriate epidemiological model using just mortality (which is more reliable than cases), the lockdown event is massive and trivial to detect. Anyone who claims otherwise is either dishonest or foolish.

Here is some data on travel and transit in New York: https://visitdata.org/bydatesel/New%20York/New%20York/Travel... Can you detect the lockdown, which took effect at 8PM on Sunday, March 22?

How are you defining lockdown? Schools were cancelled on March 15, but that was after days of pressure. Many private schools had already closed at that point, and many workplaces had switched to WFH already. The official statewide lockdown started later, but authorities and businesses had been gradually locking down for weeks prior to that.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#299

Post by __s »

mistermann wrote: post #292
__s wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An issue is when there's an issue which people with information are trying to work around, word gets out & the risk becomes exaggerated to societal collapse. Nevermind that a plague could come & kill half the population & society wouldn't collapse. So when people get the idea that we're trying to stop society from collapsing, they expect we'll still see society almost collapse. But instead we're averting a much lower…

> Basically we need to moderate both opinions which effectively work together: the "there's no problem to begin with" group feels validated by the "the world is ending" group being way off the mark. I agree. Do you have any idea what approach could be taken to accomplish this though, even where dealing with a single, otherwise logical person?

I have a fair share of interactions with the apocalyptic crowd, so this is based on interactions with that side

I tend to try to demonstrate napkin math with pessimistic numbers to show that they're out of bound. Napkin math is particularly useful math because it allows one to play with parameters & abstracts/aggregates complicated bits. So we can also show how pessimistic things would have to be for them to be right, ie what we should be seeing now which would support their projection outside of their anecdotes or imagination

It's important to not become identified as an adversary (ie, I'm not denying a problem when I assert they should reduce their perceived risk). This means making sure to underline which facts you agree on, & verify that your values are aligned

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#300

Post by ryanwaggoner »

specialist wrote: post #272
wheelerwj wrote: post #176

> I’m a software / site reliability engineer okay, thanks. Seriously, the list of scientist and medical organizations advising through this period is so long, I don't know why anyone who isn't at equally experienced tries to counter-claim their insights. I'm not saying we shouldn't do our own research and arrive at our own conclusion, but if you arrive at a different conclusion, you're almost certainly the one whose…

Ryan Kemper is attempting to construct a decision making framework. Right or wrong, I like that someones are trying. It now occurs to me that the experts (epidemiologists?) have already done this, which would be a pretty good starting point. If so, why aren't we now debating their plans? I want someone, anyone to state thresholds and benchmarks. Tell us the parameters and values. Then we can have a constructive debat…

Multiple groups of experts have released plans to reopen the country [1], and I'm assuming this is happening all over the globe. The reason some people are not debating them is that they find the options very unpalatable, so instead they turn to armchair experts who write authoritative-sounding treatises that tell us what we want to hear.

1. Examples: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/coronavirus-plans-soc...

Post reply on HN