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

Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 251 posts

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#221

Post by rconti »

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…

I mean, the hospitals are full. Staff are catching covid every day. The staff are getting patient sick, they're getting their famlies sick. The hospitals are shifting workers who don't normally work with Covid patients to start working half days with covid patients, ensuring as many people as possible get exposed.

There's simply no excuse for not ensuring everybody in the hospitals, then in clinics, gets the vaccine before anyone else in the offices and working from home.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#222

Post by dmurray »

donmcronald wrote: post #95
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"?

Since computers are unbiased, the idea is that machine learning is also unbiased. However, that's not true and, if anything, it actually re-enforces a lot of bias. I've never done any, but my understanding is that machine learning is just correlation. It's good at figuring out "what", but not "why". Consider training an algorithm to recognize horses by feeding it millions of pictures of horses. Eventually, the algori…

> Now, apply the same kind of idea and feed an algorithm mugshots of all criminals. It's going to develop the same bias and tell you that a black person is more likely to be a criminal than a white person.

No. Nobody training an ML system to detect criminals would train it only with pictures of criminals. And if you somehow did, it wouldn't determine that black people are more likely to be criminals, but that humans are more likely to be criminals than say ducks or fire engines.

Yes, ML models can end up reflecting prejudices in their training data, but this description is incorrect, reductionist and unhelpful.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#223

Post by [deleted] »

stainforth wrote: post #152
amb23 wrote: post #12

The labor of medical residents is something hospital systems exploit during normal times, but that exploitation has severely deepened during the pandemic. At the hospital my partner works at, respiratory therapists and nurses got a $10k bonus for working during COVID; the residents got nothing despite working insane hours in ICU, routinely working more than the legally mandated 90 hours per week. Just because doctors…

Is there a medical union?

[deleted]

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#224

Post by stephencanon »

pdxandi wrote: post #215
stephencanon wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-read it; the letter from the chief residents (who are residents in their final year of training, in some departments it’s everyone in their last year, in others selected leaders) was _protesting_ the allocation. The letter explaining the error was from hospital leadership, which does not include the chief residents. The email sent by a chief resident was simply passing on the administration’s explanation.

Chief residents are not always in their final year of training. In some cases, like pediatrics, it's a subsequent leadership year.

Ah, true. All my friends are surgeons =)

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#225

Post by salawat »

mulmen wrote: post #146
bigyikes wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The takeaway is the model has bias. It’s up to humans to decide what to do with that information. Depending on the input “homemaker” may be a technically reasonable output. Should we use such a model to suggest career paths to high school students? Or should we reevaluate the methodology?

Hmmm... A Homemaker must balance a myriad of factors in order to create an environment within which a group of people can productively live and work. The Man/Woman link is the more humorous seeing as programning was originally considered women's work.

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#226

Post by jules »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #65
fairity wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people are misunderstanding the likely root cause. > An algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of the vaccine. The algorithm prioritized health care workers at highest risk for COVID infections, along with factors like age and the location or unit where they work in the hospital. Residents did not have an assigned location, and along with their typically young age, they were dropped low on the…

The article addresses this: > While leadership is pointing to an error in an algorithm meant to ensure equity and justice, our understanding is this error was identified on Tuesday and a decision was made not to revise the vaccine allocation scheme before its release today

What does that even mean? Surely the utility function being optimised by the algorithm is quality of life adjusted years saved by the vaccine? Surely they do not value different people's lives differently based on their group identity, but then what does that statement mean?

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#227

Post by tshaddox »

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…

Sounds very similar to “don’t blame the decision maker, because they were just following a moral/legal principle.” Except that, bizarrely, “principles” are usually regarded in high esteem even by people who vehemently disagree with the principles and the decisions excused by them. How often do you hear things (especially in US politics) like “well at least he/she is a principled politician, that’s so rare these days.”

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#228

Post by zimpenfish »

lopmotr wrote: post #216
mulmen wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger is in thinking ML can magically see past human biases and/or is not subject to it’s own types of bias.

Seems like an overhyped danger. Does anyone actually think that? You would have to not even know that the purpose of a language model is to model human language. But if that's the level of your understanding, why would you select a language model to use as a career guidance oracle? Such a negligent career advisor would be just as likely to use those children's posters with pictures of female nurses and male doctors.…

> Does anyone actually think that [ML can magically see past human biases and/or is not subject to it’s own types of bias]?

I know some people who, fairly strongly, believe that ML is the future of non-biased decision making, yes.

> a man who's a homemaker instead of a programmer is a less attractive partner for a woman

That's definitely going to be [CITATION NEEDED].

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#229

Post by zimpenfish »

bosswipe wrote: post #184
reaperducer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess it was some simple rules like older doctors go first No need to guess. "It used an algorithm that assigned each person a crude risk score, taking into account factors such as age, job description and the number of coronavirus cases that had been detected in their hospital department. That resulted in personnel like environmental services workers, food service workers and older employees being shuttled to the…

I really don't think you can call that an algorithm, it's a set of human defined rules. You could call it a formula, but an algorithm implies a series of steps which are not present here.

Since algorithm is defined as "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations", how is it not an algorithm?

Re: Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out medical residents

#230

Post by Ar-Curunir »

voldacar wrote: post #207
Ar-Curunir wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFW when you think capitalism can survive without the state

i don't think walter is an ancap

So then is the US not capitalist? Because I see Congress getting vaccines before essential workers

(And it’s not because they’re paying more)

Post reply on HN