Tribalism comes for pandemic science • Hacker News Board

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#101

Post by matthewdgreen » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

salmon30salmon wrote: post #82

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…

This has largely _not_ been a Federal response, this has largely been in the hands of the States, at least in regards to setting the policies. State epidemiologists are currently more "powerful" than the CDC in most states, so blaming the response on who is in majority control of the Federal government is short-sighted. Yes, the (lack of) organized Federal response influenced the severity of the issue in the early da…

This is nuts. Large portions of the response were absolutely in the hands of the Federal government, which failed catastrophically. These range from the elimination of our pandemic response team [0] to the early testing debacle, which resulted from bad tests distributed by CDC (and early failures to scale up private testing using Federal powers and expedited FDA approval) [1], to the lack of coordination between states —- typically an essential function of the Federal government —- to reticent distribution of stimulus funds that were needed to bolster an effective lockdown and support state budgets [2]. Let’s not even start with the weird Federal PPE hijackings that nobody has ever properly gotten to the bottom of. My own state governor (a Republican) had to send state police to protect imports of testing kits, so they wouldn’t be stolen by the Federal government [3].

This isn’t even close to complete, and it’s just the official response. I won’t even get into the totally catastrophic and shifting moral leadership we received from the White House, the weird stuff about opening for Easter. And ugh, the fact that close allies of WH cabinet members were deliberately funding astroturf “anti-lockdown” movements that argued for opening up even against the administration’s own recommendations [4].

Honestly, from your response I can only assume that you haven’t been reading the news since January.

[0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/ [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/t... [2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/4... [3] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/30/poli... [4] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/opin...

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#102

Post by umvi » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:52 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…

I was skeptical of covid-19 from the start (check my comment history) even though the data appeared to be against me initially. My "gut" told me we were overreacting though, and a lot of things didn't make sense (like the aircraft carrier full of asymptomatic sailors). I was browbeaten and I conformed, assuming the data would eventually prove me wrong. I dutifully wore a mask and social distanced and didn't let my kids go to the park to be a "team player" but now I'm kind of angry that I'm slowly being vindicated. Not because I was "correct" in my predictions, but because of how sure the zealots were of their position while browbeating me into conformance.

I'll never get an apology, of course. It'll just be the same old "not my fault, I formed my view based on the expert guidance of the time, what else could I have done?" Strong opinions, loosely held, indeed.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#103

Post by robocat » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

KarlKemp wrote: post #65

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 lock…

Everyone has their own theory about why some countries do better than others, but we don’t yet know why: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/07/immunological-...

Does it help to jump to conclusions about the cause being lockdown variations, or weather, or sunlight, or political leanings?

Anybody can cherry-pick their example countries to support their argument, but so far I can find counter-examples to their points whenever I look. I do agree lockdowns have their place (e.g. New Zealand has eliminated the disease using a lockdown, and the Asian success stories).

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#104

Post by thu2111 » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #32

throwaway894345 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that the root problem that needs to be addressed is that to a lot of people, scientists and the media appear to put politics before truth. Fully agree here. I'm aware of Heterodox Academy trying to tackle this problem in the academic world--is there an analog solving for media bias?

At this point, the only thing I'm hoping for is basically total media collapse. It's actually proceeding apace. By its very nature, being slick TV shows and edited textual content, it'll superficially look like everything's fine until the very end, but the layoffs continue to roll through, marginal outlets are closing, the viewership drops, the respect keeps finding new lows... it's still looking good and may even co…

Yes for TV news. Not for every kind of news. Some outlets are having a good crisis.

In the UK the Daily Telegraph is giving back the government furlough/support money as it doesn't need it. So is The Spectator. Interestingly these are the right wing newspapers. Why give up free money? Because the government really needs it but the newspapers don't, given that they are profitable and subscriptions have been rising, not falling.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-statement-from-the-cha...

The Daily Telegraph has doubled subscriptions in March alone.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#105

Post by dekhn » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #98

dekhn wrote: post #40

There are times I'm glad I left health science/biology/medicine as a field and it's interesting to watch people slowly realize just how badly structured the entire human health field is organized (from academic research to research hospitals to profit hospitals to world health organizations) and how all the incentives are messed up. The closer you get in biology to human health, the more ego, tribalism, and assholery…

Dumb question, but what's a "shark" in this context?

Sharks are opportunists- for example people who wait for somebody else to do all the hard work, then come in, take over and get all the credit. It's not a really strong analogy but I've heard many people in biotech referring to sharks in that context.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#106

Post by ardy42 » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

salmon30salmon wrote: post #83

ardy42 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> At best an economist could advise you on how to keep the economy afloat under the restrictions the epidemiologists has advised. > Why WOULDN'T we consider the economic ramifications? He's not saying that. He's talking about who should be giving the marching orders. Let me put it another way: in a war, the generals decide what equipment the military needs and the economists figure out how to produce it. You don't h…

But before you go to war, the leaders listen to a diversity of opinions. Could diplomacy work? Could sanctions? What about an alliance prior to war? Could we use covert methods? The problem here is that we waged war without having that discussion. We went straight to the Generals (in our case, epidemiologists) without getting the opinion of the diplomats, allies, covert ops (economists, labor groups, civil rights gro…

> But before you go to war, the leaders listen to a diversity of opinions. Could diplomacy work? Could sanctions? What about an alliance prior to war? Could we use covert methods? The problem here is that we waged war without having that discussion. We went straight to the Generals (in our case, epidemiologists) without getting the opinion of the diplomats, allies, covert ops (economists, labor groups, civil rights groups) etc.

You're leaning a bit too hard on the analogy: you can't negotiate with a virus. The pandemic is more akin to an attack by an irrationally implacable enemy with a couple months advance warning of the threat at the border. In the analogy, the policy options are: resist, Y/N? If Y, then how effectively?

When a country is attacked, does its leadership typically first consult with its economists to determine if resistance is cost effective vs. just letting the enemy take territory or kill citizens with little opposition? Usually the generals evaluate what they can achieve, and if success unachievable, then alternatives are considered. Surrender is always an option, but it's usually towards the bottom of the list.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#107

Post by bsder » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #7

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…

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. They happened to be right in this regard. The left has also made exceptions in their “lockdown everything” policy, specifically with regard to their own protests (and the response of pandemic experts is a particularly interesting case study o…

> the right has been pretty consistent about tailoring the response according to risk

Have we forgotten that "this is all a liberal hoax"? Remember HCQ is a cure-all? That's not being consistent--that's completely ignoring science.

The right in the US has been consistent about tailoring its message to AI driven talking points that drive social media engagement. Nothing more.

How about a "free market" solution? Give everybody who earns under $40K a year $2,000 per month unconditionally for the next 6 months. And let businesses reopen. Now, people who want to can go back to work and have a $2K bonus per month on top. Or they can forgo that and sit at home.

Let's see how people actually vote with their feet and wallets.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#108

Post by colpabar » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

reddog wrote: post #30

Whenever science and politics intersect, science loses. If science is studying something apolitical like the metabolism of water bear or a quasar burst from a distant galaxy it’s fine. Throw politics in the mix and the waters become muddied very quickly when funding and reputational concerns motivate and corrupt a delicate process. Politics is like Lennie who wants to pet the rabbits. Science is like the rabbits.

That is pretty unfair to Lennie; at least his intentions were good.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#109

Post by danharaj » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #68

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 insta…

Here's some possibilities:

There's a lot of experts out there, and depending on how the people who fill your feed pick and choose them, they can make them say anything they want. Some experts might change their minds when confronted with a new extraordinary situation. Others are, well, not experts, they just have the credentials of experts.

"Experts" have been decried as hypocrites and frauds since the time of Lao Zi, for what its worth. All your interactions with expertise are mediated and indirect, except the expertise you yourself have.

Re: Tribalism comes for pandemic science

#110

Post by robocat » Mon, Jun 08, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #17

The people who said that lockdown needed to be limited in length because people couldn't take it for long were right. Unfortunately, due to not understanding exponentials, many advocated for starting the lockdown later : hence the UK's delayed lockdown and therefore highest death toll in Europe. The people advocating for "herd immunity" never addressed the death rate; a death rate of even 0.5% in the UK would be thre…

> 0.5% of the country infected

Your own numbers show this is totally incorrect: death rate 0.5% times 40k deaths, means infected is 8 million (or more precisely the count was that number some weeks ago as deaths take time to happen).

this has been an obvious calculation from the start and I am not the only person trying to correct the misuse of the confirmed infected count (287k) for your conclusion.

Honest question: why do you not know this?