Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents • Hacker News Board

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#111

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 7:54 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #86

jrochkind1 wrote: post #15

> "[A]lgorithms are made by people and the results ... were reviewed multiple times by people," You got that right. The way they talk about "an algorithm did it" makes it seem as as if they think that somehow explains it, like there was only one algorithm possible handed down from god or something. We'll be seeing more and more of this of course. "We can't be blamed, it was an algorithm! We can't be blamed for trusti…

I'm not even sure this formula is WRONG. It's just not great for morale. Residents are generally under 34 and in good heath. In the USA, only ~2400 people 34 have died from COVID--and that is mostly people with comorbidites. In comparison about ~250,000 people over 55 have died. You'd obviously have do account for life-years lost, risk of exposure [1], etc. I wouldn't be shocked if giving the vaccine to a 25 year old…

[deleted]

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#112

Post by bigyikes » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 7:54 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #94

LeanderK wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a native speaker and I don't think I understand the quote. What should "money laundering for bias mean"?

To add to the other answers, machine learning based on biased datasets results in biased models. For example, Word2Vec can be used to make analogies. Having it determine "Man is to woman as king is to ___." results in "queen", which is reasonable. On the other hand, determining "Man is to computer programmer as woman is to ___." results in "homemaker". The algorithm wasn't deliberately designed to have sexist bias in…

How would you expect the computer programmer analogy be completed? I legitimately don’t know what a reasonable answer would be.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#113

Post by visarga » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #94

LeanderK wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a native speaker and I don't think I understand the quote. What should "money laundering for bias mean"?

To add to the other answers, machine learning based on biased datasets results in biased models. For example, Word2Vec can be used to make analogies. Having it determine "Man is to woman as king is to ___." results in "queen", which is reasonable. On the other hand, determining "Man is to computer programmer as woman is to ___." results in "homemaker". The algorithm wasn't deliberately designed to have sexist bias in…

> On the other hand, determining "Man is to computer programmer as woman is to ___." results in "homemaker"

Who are we to decide for the woman what she should feel about it? Is bias absolute or relative, objective or subjective? Is there a one true policy for dealing with bias or can there be one?

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#114

Post by mattkrause » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

trianglem wrote: post #107

jrochkind1 wrote: post #15

> "[A]lgorithms are made by people and the results ... were reviewed multiple times by people," You got that right. The way they talk about "an algorithm did it" makes it seem as as if they think that somehow explains it, like there was only one algorithm possible handed down from god or something. We'll be seeing more and more of this of course. "We can't be blamed, it was an algorithm! We can't be blamed for trusti…

With you right until the end where formulas are made by people. In many NN setups, the “formula” is pretty much a self trained black box so in those cases people can only be blamed for the input data that went into training the system.

I disagree—-that’s exactly the the “bias laundering” discussed above.

The people/organization deploying a system are responsible for evaluating the system and how it might fail. You can’t just throw up your hands and go “Well, we had that data and this network so...it is what it is.” You could have fit a different model—-or not at all.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#115

Post by itronitron » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

sfvisser wrote: post #98

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, blaming the algorithm is an indirect way of blaming software engineers. From Facebook to the VW emissions scandal to Stanford’s vaccine allocation, people love narratives that blame engineers. I suspect this trend will only get worse as the general public realizes that engineers are now a highly compensated professional, similar to how lawyers are the butt of so many jokes.

I don’t think people necessarily love narratives that blame engineers. Why would they? Some specific people in positions of responsibility that screw up badly see blaming engineers/tech as an easy way out of their responsibilities. Similar outcome different thing.

I think it is similar to how certain people always feel they are being ripped off by their car mechanic. They were told one thing by marketing/sales and then reality turns out to be more nuanced.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#116

Post by XorNot » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #103

XorNot wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean a surface level analysis would say that you've missed a critical datum if you're saying patient-facing staff should be left at risk of being incapacitated from their duties for up to a month.

That should definitely be a factor considered, especially in any area where a doctor shortage could occur. But a month sounds like a long time for <35 years olds in good health.

14 days is the quarantine period to show symptoms. It is not how long the infection takes to run its course if you actually have it, which is generally 3-4 weeks presuming things go well, which they much more frequently do not.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#117

Post by afterburner » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

js2 wrote: post #96

neilv wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this opinion interesting: https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/09/how-call-rooms-reflect-...

If you visit this page with an ad blocker enabled, nothing renders. If you disable your ad blocker on the page, well, god help you: https://ibb.co/PskWz4d A couple alternative links for reading: - https://outline.com/udkxSE - https://pastebin.com/5MQE91k3

Seemed fine with uBlock Origin

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#118

Post by bosswipe » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

smnrchrds wrote: post #53

jrochkind1 wrote: post #15

> "[A]lgorithms are made by people and the results ... were reviewed multiple times by people," You got that right. The way they talk about "an algorithm did it" makes it seem as as if they think that somehow explains it, like there was only one algorithm possible handed down from god or something. We'll be seeing more and more of this of course. "We can't be blamed, it was an algorithm! We can't be blamed for trusti…

"Machine learning is like money laundering for bias" https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/744595961217835008

There's no way they used machine learning here. My guess it was some simple rules like older doctors go first. I wouldn't even call it an algorithm. I think algorithm is a weasly way for the administrator to make it sound more complicated then it was.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#119

Post by wang_li » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:03 PM UTC

Dumblydorr wrote: post #26

Gross oversight: Veterinarians are not in the first wave of vaccinations, despite being both essential and healthcare workers. The mega corps that own most Vet clinics don't care about them, they have continued operating apace. Meanwhile, corona could be all over the dogs and cats brought in, very few owners sanitize their indoor pets before Vet visits.

Neither are farm workers, grocery store workers, utility workers, and many other people whose work and service are used by the vast majority of the country every single day. Medical workers do not make up large percentage of COVID-19 deaths, less than 1% in the US. I don't know what the numbers are for other types of essential workers, but I doubt it's a lot different, since the majority of deaths fall largely on people 55+ years old.

Another factor that should be accounted for, but I've not seen in any official policy, is the people who've contracted the virus and recovered. While there is research showing that the human immune response to SARS-COV-2 may persist for years[0], even if that's not true we do know that it lasts for 6+ months as shown by the small amount of confirmed reinfections[1]. So put those people at the end of the line.

We really should write down the objective and then work out the way to achieve that objective. If the objective is to preserve the maximum amount of life years, then the criteria should heavily bias toward people older 55+ and people with comorbidities. Being a front line health care worker is very honorable and should carry a lot of respect, but it may not be the truly relevant criteria for maximizing the preservation of life.

0. https://bgr.com/2020/11/18/coronavirus-immunity-years-antibo... 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/11/16/though-r...

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#120

Post by itronitron » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:04 PM UTC

jcims wrote: post #109

sfvisser wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think people necessarily love narratives that blame engineers. Why would they? Some specific people in positions of responsibility that screw up badly see blaming engineers/tech as an easy way out of their responsibilities. Similar outcome different thing.

Not engineers broadly or specifically, but I do think many people find a bit of schadenfreude when an overly confident expert is found to be wrong.

The twist with software engineering though is that the overly confident people tend to be the non-experts, who then blame the engineers for having poor communication skills.