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

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

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 341 posts

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

#171

Post by robhunter »

Waterluvian wrote: post #144
brody_hamer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Canada (and likely elsewhere), there were a number of restrictions which were tied to hospital capacity. As the number of available ICU beds dropped: more restrictions were put in place, and vice versa. A lot of emphasis was placed on preventable deaths. That is; situations where we’re turning away a patient that we could’ve saved , because we don’t have a bed available for them. I thought this was a solid, intuit…

Yeah that approach really resonated with me as well. A very straightforward concept: how much capacity do we have for higher risk behaviour? And in this case the cut-off for higher risk may be “yeah we’re not going to hockey games for a while.”

What data is there to suggest that going to hockey games was "high risk behaviour"?

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

#172

Post by slv77 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #131

It was a hard thing to broach at the time without people frothing at the mouth about how I must be anti vaccine or something: Has there been any attempt to calculate the cost-benefit of all the various measures and how extreme we should go with them? I’m guessing it’s hard to quantify and compare. A lot of things like general depression, isolation, kids missing half a year of school, etc. can’t really be evaluated ag…

The cost-benefit calculations in terms of excess deaths are irrelevant. It was clear even during the initial outbreak that policymakers primary constraints were the due to uncertainty about the virus and limits on availability of protective gear and ICU beds. Without protective gear there was no way to reduce transmission without isolation and once ICU beds are at capacity mortality rates double and people are dying in the streets and the medical system collapses.

There is no scenarios where the collapse of the medical system is a viable outcome for policymakers that is also compatible with a functioning economy. A collapse of the medical system means non-covid fatalities also increase. Heart attacks, car accidents and childbirth all become mortality contributors. The most likely outcome of a medical system collapse would be martial law, mass graves, economic collapse and potential collapse of essential systems like food distribution.

The idea that policymakers were primarily constrained by the thought of grandpa dying a few years early and weighing it against the grandkids social isolation needs to die.

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

#173

Post by robhunter »

brody_hamer wrote: post #141
Waterluvian wrote: post #131

It was a hard thing to broach at the time without people frothing at the mouth about how I must be anti vaccine or something: Has there been any attempt to calculate the cost-benefit of all the various measures and how extreme we should go with them? I’m guessing it’s hard to quantify and compare. A lot of things like general depression, isolation, kids missing half a year of school, etc. can’t really be evaluated ag…

In Canada (and likely elsewhere), there were a number of restrictions which were tied to hospital capacity. As the number of available ICU beds dropped: more restrictions were put in place, and vice versa. A lot of emphasis was placed on preventable deaths. That is; situations where we’re turning away a patient that we could’ve saved , because we don’t have a bed available for them. I thought this was a solid, intuit…

Fellow Canadian here - I think the suggestion that restrictions were tied to hospital capacity is a bit off. Restrictions were largely political - driven extensively by polling - and changed frequently with minimal or nonexistent reasoning.

Here in Ontario, the McKinsey-driven "Science Table" frequently referenced hospital capacity in their reports, but their modelling often ended up being off by orders of magnitude.

While I concur that preventable deaths are unfortunate, I don't think there's evidence to suggest that most - all? - of the restrictions put in place had any noticeable impact on preventable deaths from Covid.

If anything, those restrictions very much enabled other deaths - from mental health challenges, isolation, depression, substance abuse, delayed medical screening - that very much were preventable.

While we don't have a full picture yet, it's telling that excess mortality remains heavily elevated even though most of the population has had Covid and been vaccinated.

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

#175

Post by jameshart »

robhunter wrote: post #171
Waterluvian wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that approach really resonated with me as well. A very straightforward concept: how much capacity do we have for higher risk behaviour? And in this case the cut-off for higher risk may be “yeah we’re not going to hockey games for a while.”

What data is there to suggest that going to hockey games was "high risk behaviour"?

For individuals, it may not have been. Thousands of people going along to each game all with relatively low individual risk of contracting COVID.

But if after every hockey game 20 hospital beds get used up, that's as risky for the health system as allowing a restaurant to serve uncooked chicken for an evening.

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

#176

Post by ryandrake »

logicchains wrote: post #137
Waterluvian wrote: post #131

It was a hard thing to broach at the time without people frothing at the mouth about how I must be anti vaccine or something: Has there been any attempt to calculate the cost-benefit of all the various measures and how extreme we should go with them? I’m guessing it’s hard to quantify and compare. A lot of things like general depression, isolation, kids missing half a year of school, etc. can’t really be evaluated ag…

Yes, there are papers attempting that, such as this recent one, which looked at whether shelter in place policies reduced overall excess mortality: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hec.4737 . "Using an event study approach and data from 43 countries and all U.S. states, we measure changes in excess deaths following the implementation of COVID-19 shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. We do not find that cou…

Almost nowhere on earth did "stay at home" actually happen. We all had these so-called mandates, but people (especially in more rural areas) pretty much did whatever the hell they wanted with no repercussions since there was almost zero enforcement. They were out and about, shopping for their khakis at "essential" businesses, eating at the restaurants who refused to closed (also with no consequence) and basically ignoring the mandates. We don't have a valid experiment group because everywhere was the control group.

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

#177

Post by HerculePoirot »

sarchertech wrote: post #134
Izkata wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about the order/process elsewhere, by the time they were up for the approval process in the US there really wasn't another option simply because of the outcry after so many people had taken it, if it wasn't approved.

As a counterpoint to that, 20 million people took the Johnson and Johnson vaccine under the emergency authorization, but the FDA didn’t approve it. Also buying the emergency approval process in the first place would have required an epically massive conspiracy.

eggs and bacon

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

fhcuvuvuc wrote: post #135
Waterluvian wrote: post #131

It was a hard thing to broach at the time without people frothing at the mouth about how I must be anti vaccine or something: Has there been any attempt to calculate the cost-benefit of all the various measures and how extreme we should go with them? I’m guessing it’s hard to quantify and compare. A lot of things like general depression, isolation, kids missing half a year of school, etc. can’t really be evaluated ag…

It doesn't matter. You can't have these conversations without being censored anymore. My works HR department got sick of having people use "logic" and "evidence" to argue against their policies. After kicking a few people out the door and generally saying you can't talk about this at work anymore, nobody talks about it.

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by taway_6PplYu5 »

ryandrake wrote: post #176
logicchains wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are papers attempting that, such as this recent one, which looked at whether shelter in place policies reduced overall excess mortality: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hec.4737 . "Using an event study approach and data from 43 countries and all U.S. states, we measure changes in excess deaths following the implementation of COVID-19 shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. We do not find that cou…

Almost nowhere on earth did "stay at home" actually happen. We all had these so-called mandates, but people (especially in more rural areas) pretty much did whatever the hell they wanted with no repercussions since there was almost zero enforcement. They were out and about, shopping for their khakis at "essential" businesses, eating at the restaurants who refused to closed (also with no consequence) and basically ign…

I guess you weren't in Spain at the time. Or China.

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

#180

Post by nkurz »

ryandrake wrote: post #176
logicchains wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are papers attempting that, such as this recent one, which looked at whether shelter in place policies reduced overall excess mortality: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hec.4737 . "Using an event study approach and data from 43 countries and all U.S. states, we measure changes in excess deaths following the implementation of COVID-19 shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. We do not find that cou…

Almost nowhere on earth did "stay at home" actually happen. We all had these so-called mandates, but people (especially in more rural areas) pretty much did whatever the hell they wanted with no repercussions since there was almost zero enforcement. They were out and about, shopping for their khakis at "essential" businesses, eating at the restaurants who refused to closed (also with no consequence) and basically ign…

I presume you are right for where you are, but I don't think your experience was universal. I live in a rural part of Vermont. My impression is that the mandates here were generally well obeyed. No restaurants were open. Grocery shopping was very limited. Public social gatherings did not happen. Whether coincidence or not, we seem to also be one of the areas with relatively low Covid deaths.
Post reply on HN