Live data from Hacker News

Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

natesilver.net

81–90 of 341 posts

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeah, we should vote for the other party to punish the--what? That's their platform? Oh. Posts like this, which blame only the Democrats by name, are practically agitprop.

The person you're replying to didn't suggest voting for Republicans; that's just something you invented because of the uniquely American habit of assuming politics is a zero-sum game with exactly two players.

I hate the state of our political system so much...

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#82

>> This wasn’t intended as any sort of super-duper hot take, and I pared the post down to avoid having too much of an attack surface. It is intended to shame Republicans. What other possible reason is there to tie death rates to political party? So yes it was a hot take. You planted a lightning rod. Making something like vaccination a political issue does everyone a disservice.

Yeah, let's not make this political. /s

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#83
post #27
post #2

This is all fine, but the focus on deaths is sort of missing the larger societal problem. The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. edit: Which is to say: The Great Barrington Declaration was wrong directionally as well. We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much a…

Eliminating Covid stopped being an option roughly around January 2020. The partial elimination you seem to be implying with "as much as possible" was never an option. It was always all or nothing.

and China tried really, really hard to eliminate it over the next 3 years. They couldn't.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#84
post #2

This is all fine, but the focus on deaths is sort of missing the larger societal problem. The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. edit: Which is to say: The Great Barrington Declaration was wrong directionally as well. We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much a…

> The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked.

SARS-CoV-2 is certainly with us to stay, so in that sense it's not over. But beyond that, I don't see how "we are so, so fucked" as you say. Covid is no doubt taking a small nibble out of life expectency, and yes there is some long Covid still taking its own nibble out of productivity and life satisfaction ... but it's not that big a part of the big picture. Covid is killing less than half as many people in the US at this point as lung cancer, and those deaths are overwhelmingly amongst the elderly. I don't want to be overtly callous, but knocking a few years of life off people well into retirement is hardly going to bring the country to its knees. There are essentially no Covid deaths among people under age 18, and among the working age population, cases requiring hospitalization or leading to long term debilitization are rare.

Those who suffer, of course, suffer. We shouldn't be unsupportive of them in their trials. But Covid as a public health crisis is largely over.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the word "arbitrary" is currently undergoing any change, it hasn't been used the way you use it in like 400+ years.

Wait, so what does arbitrary mean to you if not "the result of a judgement or choice"? Is it just a synonym for random to you?

For me, arbitrary means something like "not constrained by rules; able to be chosen at will". An arbitrary choice doesn't have to be "random" in the strict sense of being chosen by nondeterminstic chance, although people often use "random" to mean something similar to "arbitrary" in colloquial speech.

It can have good or bad connotations: "Emacs's configurability means you can extend it in arbitrary ways" is good; "Russia is known for arbitrary detention of political dissidents" is bad.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#86
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's a lot, lot rarer than the COVID alarmists seem to think. People also get post viral fatigue from other virii.

To be clear, you’re saying it’s a lot, lot rarer than Covid alarmists think… because you don’t personally know anyone with it?

Yes. That's how anecdata works. If enough people observe they don't know anyone either with or post long covid, it starts to move significance. I've known two people with ME over 50 years and it doesn't alter my sense of their personal anguish or its economic and wider health consequences.

I have no doubt long covid exists and will need significant funding in research and targeted health care. It won't need as much as, or return as much as the spend on paediatrics or obstetrics, per capita.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#87
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, even lockdowns weren't lockdowns. There were endless people who had to work, just to keep water, power, food flowing. And those people needed transportation. And past 2 weeks, transportation means parts for vehicles, maintenance, gas, oil, and food means transportation and food processors and.... It was a good idea at the time, but doomed to fail.

Where I come from, “good ideas doomed to fail” are called “bad ideas”

I recall clearly, at the time, the first two weeks of lockdown. No one, anywhere, had a clue wtf was going on, except that some new virus was spreading like wildfire, that it spread before symptoms appeared, and it seemed like Italy had a crazy high death rate.

Blaming people with the knowledge of hindsight is just plain wrong.

Later lockdowns? Now that's a different conversation.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#88
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a bystander this seems accurate, but at the end of the article Nate himself states that he has little hope that it will convince people on Twitter/X. It's more about credibility to his own readership, I suppose.

Getting in an argument (vs disagreement) in real life is worthless. Getting into an argument on the Internet has even less value. Personally I think this was an easy article for him to write because he already had the data and he wants more subscribers (please take this take as neutral opinion and not a dis to Silver)

That depends on what the goal is. It's worthless if you're trying to convince the other side. But in many cases, you're actually trying to convince the audience, and certainly for something like a blogpost here, I'd argue that it is not only the case, but successful, since at minimum we know it got posted to hackernews and has traction.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#89
post #2

This is all fine, but the focus on deaths is sort of missing the larger societal problem. The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. edit: Which is to say: The Great Barrington Declaration was wrong directionally as well. We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much a…

> None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. I love doom more than the average person, by what I would say is a quite significant margin... but I don't see this at all. I've had covid at least twice, including some awful symptoms a month after recovery that had me convinced I had long covid as well... a few months later (now years) not so much. While I do know many people of who have lost loved ones from Covid,…

I don't know enough to comment on long Covid, but I think an element of it is that for a long time we've denied that sometimes illnesses require substantial recovery time.

I remember reading a lot of old stories as a kid where someone would get the flu or a generic fever and take multiple months to recover. Industrial society made that economically infeasible but our biology didn't change.

I don't think it should be surprising to anyone that having a massive population of a virus in your lungs and elsewhere has long term effects.

Re: Fine, I'll run a regression analysis but it won't make you happy

#90
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's a lot, lot rarer than the COVID alarmists seem to think. People also get post viral fatigue from other virii.

To be clear, you’re saying it’s a lot, lot rarer than Covid alarmists think… because you don’t personally know anyone with it?

It's not the scientific method but if something is very common, and I have several hundred friends, relatives and work colleagues of various backgrounds and states of health then I should have heard of someone experiencing it, no?

I've seen no evidence on this thread that proves it's super-common so apart from funding my own research project, what do you suggest?

Post reply on HN