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

251–260 of 341 posts

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

#251

Post by orblivion »

jonahhorowitz wrote: post #238
ezekiel68 wrote: post #222

I was a good US citizen and used what little influence I had among my social circle to encourage others to follow the COVID protection measures. And I adore Nate Silver. So, pardon me if I confess that all I read in this article was: Blah blah blah 'I mostly agree with ... an October 2020 anti-lockdown statement signed by a large number of scientists and medical professionals. “Those who are not vulnerable should imm…

The measures that seem like they should have worked, but people claim they didn't are: - masks: clearly they worked for the medical professionals that were treating patients during the first waves, as they were directly exposed and didn't get sick, why didn't they work for the population at large? Did we not wear them correctly, consistently? - schools: It seems obvious that schools could be a huge vector of transmis…

> schools... done differently

My attitude pretty much the whole pandemic was 80/20 rule. Everybody seemed to be fighting for the extremes which gave us less optimal results. I didn't see anybody suggesting masking kids indoors especially during deep winter, but then giving them extra time for outdoor play with no restrictions (distancing etc). The transmission outdoors might not be zero but it would be much less, so it would be a much reduced vector. That seems like a good tradeoff for their mental health. Or if not this exactly, something like this. Or what about class outdoors, or open windows and fans instead of masks. I don't recall there even being a discussion like this; granted I'm not a parent.

(caveat: This all assumes masks work and that kids are actually a big vector. I've heard contrary views on both.)

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

#252

Post by candiddevmike »

jonahhorowitz wrote: post #238
ezekiel68 wrote: post #222

I was a good US citizen and used what little influence I had among my social circle to encourage others to follow the COVID protection measures. And I adore Nate Silver. So, pardon me if I confess that all I read in this article was: Blah blah blah 'I mostly agree with ... an October 2020 anti-lockdown statement signed by a large number of scientists and medical professionals. “Those who are not vulnerable should imm…

The measures that seem like they should have worked, but people claim they didn't are: - masks: clearly they worked for the medical professionals that were treating patients during the first waves, as they were directly exposed and didn't get sick, why didn't they work for the population at large? Did we not wear them correctly, consistently? - schools: It seems obvious that schools could be a huge vector of transmis…

RE: masks, paper masks don't do shit, gators even worse. That's what 90% of the population wore. Had we enough N-95s for everyone, I think the mask effectiveness would've increased dramatically, but I doubt folks would put up with wearing one. For me, I still wear N-95s on planes and in crowded places, I understand their effectiveness and it fits my risk/reward profile.

RE: schools, they have been and continue to be a reservoir for COVID and other nasties. Even this September, like clockwork, COVID is ticking back up in the waste treatment tests. I'm still waiting for society to have a conversation about what role schools should fill and how we ensure schools operate the way that people think they should. Additionally, schools should be able to turn away students who are sick--right now it's all honor based and kids with fevers have to be accommodated.

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

#253

Post by nextaccountic »

listenallyall wrote: post #246
pwarner wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everyone was pretty wrong about COVID, at least at some points in time. But it's very rare for anyone to admit it. I'll admit I was wrong, between sanitizing my hands when it was really in the air, to assuming the vaccines would end it. Lots of mistakes on my end!

This "everybody was wrong" and "whoopsie!" self-absolution is some of the ugliest and most hypocritical parts of the entire Covid phenomenon. No -- plenty of people were ardently against lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and school shutdowns, but all kinds of pundits and self-selected rule enforcers loudly lambasted and insulted them endlessly. Many, many lives were permanently affected in multiple, very negative ways, wi…

In which way vaccine mandates were the wrong tool to fight Covid?

We should have higher rates of vaccination worldwide, not lower.

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

#254

Post by slv77 »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #232
slv77 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

CONCLUSIONS Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424. opens in new tab.)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2115869

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

#255

Post by fwungy »

MostlyStable wrote: post #111
fwungy wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A debate in real time between qualified adversaries. Treat these things like you're making a major investment. Make both sides answer hard questions from each other. For example have RFK and Fauci put together teams of MDs and PhDs to debate in a live event.

"live" debate selects far less for truth and far more for "skill at debating" which is nearly orthogonal to being correct. That is not to say that live debate has no place, or is worthless. I'm just not sure I'd come even close to agreeing that it's the ideal way to come to the truth.

Every Ph.D. goes through oral qualifications. An expert should be able to articulate and defend their views on the subject at hand in a live question format.

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

#256

Post by pottertheotter »

tommykins wrote: post #174

I will never understand the use of Stata to achieve anything.

What does this mean? I used Stata a ton during my PhD. It’s not my preferred software for statistical analysis but it does a regression the same as anything else.

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

#257

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

SilverBirch wrote: post #8

I think the funny thing is that Nate can be a flippant twit on Twitter but has totally fallen for it in critiques of him. Essentially this article is “a bunch of people baselessly speculated about an assertion I made, so I’m going to spend lots of time proving something they don’t care about”

FWIW, I think Twitter is a rabid cesspool that will be a big piece in the downfall of humanity, but I didn't really share your assessment. For whatever reason he decided to write this blog post, I thought it was really interesting, insightful, and I appreciated the detail and clarity of thought that went into it (e.g. the analysis at the bottom of the article that showed vaccination rates were the real factor that resulted in differences in death rates, and that partisanship was really just a proxy for that).

So, Twitter folk may not care about what he showed in this post, but FWIW I certainly appreciated it.

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

#258

Post by educaysean »

fwungy wrote: post #224
sarchertech wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about how many people were involved in the approvals across the entire globe? Most of the approvals processes were conducted in public by career scientists and doctors. There were tens of thousands of people involved that would have to look the other way. Any company that’s capable of pulling off a global operation like that with absolutely zero exposure, is already running the world and doesn’t need to bother…

You don't become a career scientist or doctor by rocking the boat. A medical degree is a huge investment. Doctors have student loans and families. Anyone who sticks their neck out is at risk of losing their license or research grants.

> Anyone who sticks their neck out is at risk of losing their license or research grants.

Sticks their neck out against whom? Against the Afro-Chinese/Euroamerican consortium that took kickbacks from the "medical companies" in order to keep the COVID theatre going? Those poor honest doctors around the world - if only they could speak up! If only one doctor would tell the truth!

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

#259

Post by dataangel »

actuallyalys wrote: post #248
jonahhorowitz wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The measures that seem like they should have worked, but people claim they didn't are: - masks: clearly they worked for the medical professionals that were treating patients during the first waves, as they were directly exposed and didn't get sick, why didn't they work for the population at large? Did we not wear them correctly, consistently? - schools: It seems obvious that schools could be a huge vector of transmis…

I am a little frustrated over an apparent lack of curiosity around mask effectiveness. * If you think they're an effective measure for the public in general (which is probably closest to my position), then the variation in studies seems like it should still give you pause because it seems like the way mandates and messaging are implemented could undermine the usefulness. * If you think they're effective in individual…

what variability? AFAIK in controlled studies masks work (as in when you actually test things in a lab rather than looking at population statistics), are more effective when both people in the room are wearing them, we know the size of particle they filter and we know the viruses are bigger than that. there's 0 doubt at this point they do what they are supposed to do.

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

#260

Post by dataangel »

refulgentis wrote: post #234
ezekiel68 wrote: post #222

I was a good US citizen and used what little influence I had among my social circle to encourage others to follow the COVID protection measures. And I adore Nate Silver. So, pardon me if I confess that all I read in this article was: Blah blah blah 'I mostly agree with ... an October 2020 anti-lockdown statement signed by a large number of scientists and medical professionals. “Those who are not vulnerable should imm…

There's some people who are still manage to be newly wrong even today. For example, asserting that the government was enforcing strict lockdown measures in October 2020, if ever. This is despite obvious evidence that people preferred staying home, such as the still historically low rate of people working from offices. I wasn't wrong once, from the first videos from China in January 2020. it's been amusing to watch pe…

vax does prevent both, in the sense it dramatically lowers the rate. they're just not 100% effective.
Post reply on HN