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

261–270 of 341 posts

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

#261

Post by seanthemon »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #212
gpt5 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initial constraints like ICU bed shortages and gear scarcity definitely had a basis. But those measure lasted long after the bottlenecks got resolved and the risk assessment became clearer. For example, public schools stayed remote while virtually every private school switched to in-person (even California's governor opted for private in-person schooling for their kids). The public's frustration is that these prolong…

Hospitals were closer to collapse in 2022 than they were in 2020 or 2021 in my experience.

Any way to substantiate that claim? I also assume you mean in the US.

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

#262

Post by Izkata »

dataangel wrote: post #259
actuallyalys wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> we know the size of particle they filter and we know the viruses are bigger than that.

If we're talking cloth masks as most people are, the viruses are actually way smaller.

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

#263

Post by gadders »

jonstewart wrote: post #93
ggm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I’ve never known anyone to justify an argument explicitly using anecdata unironically. Amazing, no notes.

You don't seem to care that the COVID alarmists are only using anecdata as well. I think if is clear where your sympathies lie.

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

#264

Post by slv77 »

firesteelrain wrote: post #230
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…

It’s still not as clear cut as patient in and gets bed. There was some tweaking that had to be done to triage patients better then determine who most likely needed a bed. At UF Hospitals, they used discrete event simulation to figure out how to streamline this process. Not sure how many others went through the same thing. Point is, hospitals share some of the blame too

Discrete event simulations is used to get better utilization of a constrained resource. The fact that hospitals were using it just reinforces that ICU capacity was considered a serious constraint by policymakers. Discrete event simulation will give policy makers more confidence in capacity models but doesn’t improve patient outcomes or reduce treatment time.

Hospital protocols also improved over time to reduce the need for respirators and the disease moderated but there was no magic protocol that really reduced disease progression or duration. Out of my social circle there were anti-vaxers that contracted covid late in the pandemic and spent weeks in the hospital (four total, two deaths) even with late stage protocols.

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

#265

Post by Izkata »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #233
slv77 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICU capacity was a bottleneck that never got resolved. In the US there was never a nationwide effort to mobilize ICU resources to target hot spots other than an initial aborted attempt to gather respirators for the surge in NYC and send a military floating hospital. Regional programs were put into place to shift patients during a local surge and to mobilize hallways and other non-traditional capacity. In California o…

Didn't that huge hospital ship in New York sit unused until it eventually left

In Chicago we also spent millions of dollars building extra temporary capacity. It only got something like 38 patients and was quietly dismantled after one month.

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

#266

Post by Izkata »

panarky wrote: post #206
Blackthorn wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're saying that excess deaths is a rearward looking metric that nobody had the luxury of actually having at the present time when decisions were being made. It's very easy to make decisions in retrospect when you have all the information that could be useful. It's very hard to make decisions in the present when that information doesn't exist yet.

>>> What about ten lives? One thousand? Ten thousand? Are 200,000 lives meaningful enough? Silver's regression model shows that for each 1% increase in the vote share for the blue candidate, the covid death rate in that state (statistically) would fall by 15.5 per million population. In areas where the blue candidate received 20% of the vote, and the red candidate received 80%, the model predicts 1,793 deaths per mil…

> It's because red ideologues got the vaccine in far lower numbers.

Pretty sure it was something like 60% vs 70%. That doesn't seems like anywhere near different enough to explain those numbers.

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

#267

Post by CamperBob2 »

slv77 wrote: post #254
GenerocUsername wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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/nejmoa2…

He doesn't care. Someone else got to him first.

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

#268

Post by CamperBob2 »

panarky wrote: post #206
Blackthorn wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're saying that excess deaths is a rearward looking metric that nobody had the luxury of actually having at the present time when decisions were being made. It's very easy to make decisions in retrospect when you have all the information that could be useful. It's very hard to make decisions in the present when that information doesn't exist yet.

>>> What about ten lives? One thousand? Ten thousand? Are 200,000 lives meaningful enough? Silver's regression model shows that for each 1% increase in the vote share for the blue candidate, the covid death rate in that state (statistically) would fall by 15.5 per million population. In areas where the blue candidate received 20% of the vote, and the red candidate received 80%, the model predicts 1,793 deaths per mil…

It's because red ideologues got the vaccine in far lower numbers.

Vaccine refusal played a part, certainly, in connection with the fact that conservatives are older. In many instances, a lot older. In other instances, not really that much older. The trend is unidirectional but the degree varies by state, as you'll find when you start comparing West Virginia and Florida to Maine and Vermont.

But the truth is inescapable: the older someone was, the more they needed to get vaccinated and boosted... and the less likely they did.

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

#269

Post by slv77 »

seanthemon wrote: post #261
bryanlarsen wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hospitals were closer to collapse in 2022 than they were in 2020 or 2021 in my experience.

Any way to substantiate that claim? I also assume you mean in the US.

Deaths peaked in 2021 but hospitalizations peaked in 2022. Hospitals were at higher capacity in 2022 but treatment protocols had improved reducing mortality rates. Deaths caught the headlines so people missed the surge.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-hospitalizations

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

#270

Post by sangnoir »

Izkata wrote: post #262
dataangel wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> we know the size of particle they filter and we know the viruses are bigger than that. If we're talking cloth masks as most people are, the viruses are actually way smaller.

Do viruses float freely in the air, or are they mostly in aerosolized bodily fluids when from an infected persons coughs and sneezes? Cloth masks are great at trapping those and greatly reducing the "muzzle velocity" of droplets that do escape.
Post reply on HN