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

281–290 of 341 posts

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

#281

Post by pohuing »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #203
blueskies89 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't how the math works. The reason why life expectancy is going down is because middle age people are dying. People dying in their 80s has almost no impact on life expectancy calculations

Isn’t life expectancy an average? If so, then reducing any input values (people dying earlier than they otherwise would) would reduce the average. Doesn’t matter in which n-tile the reductions occur.

Wouldn't a person dying 40 years early have a tenfold impact on the average compared to someone dying 4 years early. Early being compared to the expectancy calculated without them.

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

#282

Post by ben_w »

candiddevmike wrote: post #252
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…

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…

> For me, I still wear N-95s on planes and in crowded places, I understand their effectiveness and it fits my risk/reward profile.

Likewise, however I should also add that in my case there's no risk component — not only because I get free FFP2 masks at my workplace, but also because it appears that one of the many ways that I'm unusual is that masks (and I mean this literally) cause me less issues than does my underwear.

Even if I wear a mask for a 31 km walk, it's the socks and underpants that pinch or restrict first, not the mask.

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

#283

Post by firesteelrain »

slv77 wrote: post #264
firesteelrain wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

It is not for constrained resources. You might be thinking of linear programming. It deals in constraints to achieve an objective. Discrete event simulation deals in queues.

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

#284

Post by Libcat99 »

slv77 wrote: post #273
candiddevmike wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

N-95 masks work to keep you from catching the virus and cloth or paper masks (somewhat) prevented you from spreading the virus. Ideally everyone would have worn N-95 masks but the US had four problems: 1) The US didn’t have enough N-95 masks. In Asia where masks in public were more common people used masks from their home supply. I think some segments of the population were resentful that the US didn’t have access to…

5) A not insignificant part of the population heard and understood that masks protect others and said "why should I suffer to protect them?"

I observed this sentiment in particular about return to school, and not just about masks. A sizable portion of the population would seemingly do anything to avoid accidentally helping someone else.

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

#285

Post by Kelkolo »

pwarner wrote: post #228
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…

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!

I was not wrong.

I was at home and isolating while looking at the hospital stats.

I waited for a vaccine and didn't get alpha.

When I did get COVID I already had a shot.

I was wearing an easy to wear mask and washing my hands (as I did before and still do).

The most frustrating thing to me is and was that we still live in a society were we can afford a lockdown but can't make it work.

It's the capitalism who can't handle a pandemic reasonable.

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

#286

Post by Kelkolo »

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…

You do not remember the pictures from NYC?

You believe they were not real?

Sometimes I would love to see how corona would have ripped through your country and killed even more faster without any look down...

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

#287

Post by Kelkolo »

gpt5 wrote: post #201
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…

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…

The ICU bed issue was very long ongoing issue in Germany too.

And everyone working at those hospitals didn't see any light for month/years

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

#288

Post by listenallyall »

slv77 wrote: post #235
GenerocUsername wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The hospital ship was never intended to take covid patients. The idea was the ship would take non-covid cases leaving ICU capacity in hospitals. It turns out that military hospital ships aren’t great for the general population given bulkheads and the general layout of ships.

The massive Javits Center was also made available. 2500 beds, only 141 used.

https://gothamist.com/news/fema-begin-strategic-drawdown-lar...

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

#289

Post by seanthemon »

slv77 wrote: post #269
seanthemon wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wonder if suddenly going from masks and sanitizing constantly to immediately stopping (at least in my country) may have contributed to the sudden jump. Also we were encouraged not to visit the hospital unless it was necessary so many opted not to for almost 3 years.

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

#290

Post by vcdimension »

tessierashpool wrote: post #168
vcdimension wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't even know how to mentally frame the problem. It's the number of life years lost that matters, not the number of lives, e.g. the death of a child with their whole life before them is worse than the death of an elderly person who's already on deaths door. Current statitics focus solely on number of deaths rather than expected years of life lost so we can't even make a fair assessment of the trade-offs…

Most people don't even know how to mentally frame the problem. This is ironic in a comment otherwise concerned with death rates. The risk of disablement is much higher, as is the risk of sequelae.

Sorry, I should have said quality-adjusted life years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
Post reply on HN