Tribalism comes for pandemic science • Hacker News Board

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#61

Post by ouid » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 8:54 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #24

Question: Has anyone here changed their mind about COVID19 in a major way as the data has become more complete? Just wondering. I have sensed in myself tribalistic tendencies of not changing my mind when the data changes. I'm trying hard to look at myself and recognize it and experiment with different thoughts. I find myself bouncing between thinking we have overreacted to then thinking that my perception of an overr…

Say we believe that the number of people that will be killed be coronavirus is 10^x where x is a gaussian random variable with mean 5 and standard deviation 1. What is the expected number of people killed? In the case we believe to be most common, the expected number of people to be killed is 100,000. However, the the mean value of this distribution is 1.4 million, https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=X%7EGaussian%285%2C1%2...

This is a the very strongest mathematical case for pessimism that I can give. Any argument that "we should have been less cautious" is automatically bullshit.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#62

Post by Snoozle » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

eirini1 wrote: post #55

guygurari wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “do what the experts say we should, while maintaining a diversity of expert views.” I don’t think this is an actual strategy. If there is a diversity of views, which experts do you listen to? Also, experts in which field? Epidemiologists have generally recommended very strict shutdowns, but they are not economists and are not experts on the economic ramifications. Some economists agree with strict lockdowns, others…

obviously you listen to the epidemiologist, not the economist. The economist is an expert on the economy and not on pandemics, and therefore will always give advice that is aimed at keeping up the economy and not saving people and preventing the spread of the virus. Its baffling to me that you think an economist has any kind of valid input on this matter. At best an economist could advise you on how to keep the econo…

Economic problems come with a cost on human life. There are numerous studies and paper that show how bad being poor and unhappy are for a person's health. Why WOULDN'T we consider the economic ramifications?

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#63

Post by ardy42 » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

ColanR wrote: post #53

ardy42 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fairness, the right has been pretty consistent about tailoring the response according to risk—i.e., those who are at risk should isolate and everyone else should resume work. I don't think that was being consistent about "tailoring the response according to risk [from the virus]," but rather being consistent about tailoring the response to pre-existing policy preferences . An ideal lock-down requires significant…

> tailoring the response to pre-existing policy preferences Well, that's true of the left as well. A "bottom-up government economic intervention" fits nicely with existing left wing ideas.

> Well, that's true of the left as well. A "bottom-up government economic intervention" fits nicely with existing left wing ideas.

That's true, but the different political ideologies are better at handling different kinds of problems. Public health emergencies like this one are the kind of thing that benefits from a properly-resourced, centrally coordinated response; a solution that happens to lean left.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#64

Post by aaron695 » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #29

Kiro wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Sweden it's the opposite: the right wants lockdown and the left opposes it.

It's interesting why this isn't the case in the US, too. Conservatives in the US are much older, and the people in the at-risk age groups are disproportionately Republican. Yet they oppose the lockdown. Liberals, who are the ones being laid off and bearing the economic brunt of the lockdown while being at much lower risk to their own health support it.

Evolutionary you can see a case for having society members of both keeping culture and changing culture at the same time.

Roughly Conservatives don't like change (lockdown) Liberals like change (lockdown)

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#65

Post by KarlKemp » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

salmon30salmon wrote: post #2

This is so very disheartening. I will speak only for the United States, as I am not familiar enough with other countries to comment. Not only is this impacting nearly every single person in the country, it is ruining the financial situation of over 40m people, primarily concentrated within the most financially vulnerable. This is because leaders on the left and right have refused to respond to new data, and are worki…

"The left" doesn't say "lockdown lockdown lockdown".

As a card-carrying (ANTIFA, laminated) member of the left, I consider countries like Austria, South Korea, or maybe Germany the gold standard: lockdown, yes, but continually adjusted, exchanging the most draconian measures with lesser ones when more knowledge allows more targeting, or when infection numbers sink.

All those countries have now effectively exited lockdowns, at levels of single-digit daily deaths. This allows further lockdown-free reduction by amassing resources for contact tracing every single infection.

Meanwhile, the US, UK, Brasil, and other countries are seeing thousands of deaths daily because they stopped maybe two or three weeks too early, and/or did it half-heatedly and/or failed to use that time to stand up alternatives to lockdown.

This has won them absolutely nothing, economically, as far as I can tell: Germany is at +3% unemployment (6.6% total) while the US is on >15%. And except hoping for the weather to make a difference, they will either continue to see people dying and incurring the cost of people self-quarantine. Or they'll change course, do another round of sustained lockdowns after all, and use that time to think of an excuse for wasting three months and 100,000 lives on a thought process that took competently managed countries the better part of the last in-person meeting they had this year.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#66

Post by chrisjarvis » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

eirini1 wrote: post #55

guygurari wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “do what the experts say we should, while maintaining a diversity of expert views.” I don’t think this is an actual strategy. If there is a diversity of views, which experts do you listen to? Also, experts in which field? Epidemiologists have generally recommended very strict shutdowns, but they are not economists and are not experts on the economic ramifications. Some economists agree with strict lockdowns, others…

obviously you listen to the epidemiologist, not the economist. The economist is an expert on the economy and not on pandemics, and therefore will always give advice that is aimed at keeping up the economy and not saving people and preventing the spread of the virus. Its baffling to me that you think an economist has any kind of valid input on this matter. At best an economist could advise you on how to keep the econo…

in a world where losing a job can be just as disastrous to one's health as disease, you really don't think their opinions are valid whatsoever? not everyone has large savings or the ability to work from home.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#67

Post by im3w1l » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #31

Kiro wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Sweden it's the opposite: the right wants lockdown and the left opposes it.

Just goes to show you how insidious partisanship is. It's clearly not about liberty or policy principals, but rather whatever solution one party puts forward, the other has no choice but to oppose it. One of my favorite pet daydreams is trying to figure out a way of abolishing political parties altogether...

> Just goes to show insidious partisanship is

I think this is the wrong take away. The corona debate in Sweden is pretty healthy. Not very partisan and neither side has dug their heels in.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#68

Post by manfredo » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #44

Just a quiet reminder that accounting for other peoples' actions with "partisanship" and "tribalism" is just a very easy way to stop thinking about their reasoning or motivation. If someone explained your behavior away as unthinking loyalty or allegiance you would be offended-- and rightfully so. P.S. This article is not an apolitical analysis of politics, this journal is not an apolitical scientific journal.

Evaluating whether an opinion is partisan is not ignoring their reasoning or motivation. Quite the opposite, it is evaluating their reasoning and motivation and determining the extent to which that reasoning and motivating is influence and determined by partisanship or group affiliation.

Expert opinion is supposed to be formed by empirical evidence and science. Not political affiliation or personal opinion. For instance, an expert opinion would be, "protests of X size stand to increase rates of infection by Y%" Whether or not a certain protest justified in accepting that increase of infection is a question of personal values not medical science.

Is protesting against police brutality worth the increased rate of infection? Is protesting against the lockdowns and subsequent mass unemployment worth the increased rates of infection? It's fine to form your own answers to these questions. But these are questions determined by values, not science. Expert opinions have no business trying to answer these. But medical experts are making the latter statement, and are doing so in a way that comes off as extremely partisan:

> We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives.

How on Earth are we supposed to trust these experts' advice on when to lift lockdowns when they openly state that resistance to lockdowns is rooted in white nationalism? Let alone the double standard in supporting some protests while opposing others. As much as I am inclined to defer to experts, messages like these makes it extremely hard for me to do so here. When medical experts are making statements like these, it is highly indicative of reasoning informed by partisanship rather than science.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#69

Post by robomc » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

guygurari wrote: post #50

matthewdgreen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I am on the “left”, and my view throughout this thing has been “do what the experts say we should, while maintaining a diversity of expert views.” This is also the vibe I get from most of my “left” friends. Moreover, Europe has largely followed its experts’ advice —- and with a few exceptions they’ve largely brought cases under control, so it’s not like the advice was bad. This “pox on both houses” post, in w…

> “do what the experts say we should, while maintaining a diversity of expert views.” I don’t think this is an actual strategy. If there is a diversity of views, which experts do you listen to? Also, experts in which field? Epidemiologists have generally recommended very strict shutdowns, but they are not economists and are not experts on the economic ramifications. Some economists agree with strict lockdowns, others…

We listened to the ones who were already employed to be in charge of this kind of thing, and we haven't had a case in 2 weeks, lockdown is over.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#70

Post by dnissley » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

guygurari wrote: post #50

matthewdgreen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I am on the “left”, and my view throughout this thing has been “do what the experts say we should, while maintaining a diversity of expert views.” This is also the vibe I get from most of my “left” friends. Moreover, Europe has largely followed its experts’ advice —- and with a few exceptions they’ve largely brought cases under control, so it’s not like the advice was bad. This “pox on both houses” post, in w…

> “do what the experts say we should, while maintaining a diversity of expert views.” I don’t think this is an actual strategy. If there is a diversity of views, which experts do you listen to? Also, experts in which field? Epidemiologists have generally recommended very strict shutdowns, but they are not economists and are not experts on the economic ramifications. Some economists agree with strict lockdowns, others…

The only answer I can come up with for this is a larger team of specialists in the relevant areas combined with a small number of generalists to coordinate between the experts and synthesize the findings.