This is because nobody is an epidemiologist over-night.
So now you will be able to discard any proposition from those kind of people, those one who are trying so hard to be smart, but that obviously can't become over-night ;)
Coronavirus and Credibility
101–110 of 968 posts
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since this is about watching the news, it'd be nice if you could share clips from (say) CNN or MSNBC carrying a similar message, confidence, and tone.
Here's the Guardian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aerq4byr7ps ... just older people with underlying conditions dying ... etc.
Are you joking? She says a heck of a lot more than that. Her tone is extremely cautious and she's extremely clear that we know very little about this virus, she's describing the current situation of who is dying rather than making baseless predictions about who will die in the future, and all she's saying in that one sentence is that for the current situation, "you have to put it into context". Meanwhile you have snarky Fox News folks spewing "the media mob is telling you the sky is falling down" and "at worst this is like the flu" and "this is the best time to fly" etc. And she even literally tells you "this one is scary..." and tries to explain what about it is scary. Are these glaring difference not obvious or do you just ignore everything except the 1 sentence you can cherry-pick out of context?
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of all the conspiracy theories out there, the 'caused by 5G masts' is the one that confuses me the most. I get the possible aversion to 5G, but how does one make the leap from that to it causing COVID?
I’ve tried to understand them, their rationale appears include: - 5G occurred at the same time as corona - This is therefore “too much of a coincidence” - 5G kills off things that naturally kill coronavirus - 5G makes our immune systems weaker All of which are unfounded of course. But it’s important not to just reject people’s ideas out-of-hand, or to suppress them.
The argument all over my facebook feed is that Africa is both the only country with no Coronavirus and the only country with no 5G. But really, these are the same friends arguing for flat earth in a lot of cases.
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#104Does pg never watch the news? Or did he just forget that "no worse than the flu" was the general tone until late February in pretty much all 'western' media and even MDs? E.g. https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronav... https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/the-fear-of-the-corona-vi... (kudos for correcting/updating later...) Seems a bit one-sided to get so excited about wrong predictions by the Fox/…
Not "western", but "American". Both your sources are US based (and cite the CDC). The WHO has been warning about the coronavirus for ages.
I live in Europe and can confirm that it was similar here. E.g. German state media quoting a head physician: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/schwabinger-chefarzt-co...
(literally saying in the title it's not more dangerous than the flu)
Also, the WHO posted this on Twitter in January, draw your own conclusions: https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
1, 2, 4, 8 isn’t that different from 1, 3, 5, 7. You need more sample points, larger multipliers, or prior expectation of seeing an exponential curve to see that as exponential growth.
> 1, 2, 4, 8 isn’t that different from 1, 3, 5, 7. What? The former is exponential and the latter is linear. They are the definition of different. The 30th number in the first series is 536870912. The 30th number in the second series is 59.
> [1, 2, 4, 8] is exponential and [1, 3, 5, 7] is linear.
You can't say just from 4 data points. Real data is noisy. Imagine each number is ±1.
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#106If it was not Paul Graham this would never has made it to HN front page, but ok... One of his point is that people should not talk about things they don't know about. So maybe he should start applying that to himself first (and maybe this to myself right now). The question is, how do you define the threshold of expertise require before you start talking about a subject? The concepts of truth, credibility, ethics, deo…
What needs to be noted clearly here I think is that he says it's something more than Dunning Kruger overconfidence but rather an absolute con-man level gamble they are taking as they don't seem to have a downside on this bet. And I guess we have a perfect moment to start providing that downside.
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the Guardian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aerq4byr7ps ... just older people with underlying conditions dying ... etc.
Are you joking? She says a heck of a lot more than that. Her tone is extremely cautious and she's extremely clear that we know very little about this virus, she's describing the current situation of who is dying rather than making baseless predictions about who will die in the future, and all she's saying in that one sentence is that for the current situation, "you have to put it into context". Meanwhile you have sna…
You should look at the video again. Her tone is calming and reassuring and she is saying it's scary because it is NEW. Are you deliberately trying to misinterpret it?
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#108Well, if that's the standard now, then the entirety of the US press is not credible: https://i.imgur.com/HGcoZco.png
Mass media doesn't emphasize credentials of journalists or any credibility for that matter, in other words it is never credible. It's better understood in terms of propaganda, like your link is an example of manufactured consent.
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#109From what I'm reading, I think there are still a significant minority of people who think this isn't an issue. I've had to learn to just walk away from comments on a variety of media where comments such as 'psychosomatic', 'less dangerous than the flu that kills 50,000 each year', 'patented by the illuminati', 'caused by 5G masts', and so on. I ended up deleting my twitter account as I dared try to engage with one UK…
What's amusing to be is how anyone can look at the incompetence of governments across the world, and conclude they'd be capable of any kind of organized conspiracy against the general population.
People can be capable of organizing conspiracies for their own self-interest and quite poor (or simply disinterested) in coordinating effective action otherwise. This is the story of every corrupt institution in history. You have to think beyond binary frames.
Re: Coronavirus and Credibility
#110But both sides are irrationally being confident. The doomsdayers at least as much as the "flu-bros". I think it's fair to challenge the massive interventions being taken and the economic damage.
I think the issue is that Faucci, Imperial College in the UK, are (as they should) optimising for a single function - to minimise deaths. However, if we followed this approach for road traffic, no car would be allowed to travel further than 10 miles per hour.
Someone needs to take an economic look at the Corona minimisation strategies. We do this already for other policy areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life). Does the economic impact divided by the Value of Life look in line with other areas?