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

Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 462 posts

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#371

Post by lankin »

411111111111111 wrote: post #195
cycrutchfield wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many cases in SK and Germany have not resolved yet. I don’t think you can use those numbers so definitively.

Actually South Korea is a perfect place to look for a nation which kept it under control. Germany just lost control last week, so I expect a lot more death starting next week. Hopefully Germany's plan of isolation will reduce the spread enough, but we will see...

German here. Could you elaborate how we lost control last week? At least in Bavaria everything seems to be ok - considering the circumstances...

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#372

Post by fcurts »

guscost wrote: post #339
fcurts wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, why wouldn't the same hold for underreaction?

It would. But the correct choice is not obvious anymore, don't you see? Both worst-case outcomes lead to millions of deaths, and you're not able to prove which is more likely.

I don't buy that. Judging from the actions of governments around the world, many of which made drastic course corrections based on recent findings, the consensus is that the risk of millions of deaths due to underreaction is far greater than the risk of millions of deaths due to overreaction. Of course, it will be important to continuously reassess the situation and make course corrections in either direction based on new findings. In the meantime, governments should do everything they can to mitigate financial hardship and keep the economy alive. Unfortunately, there is no way out of this that won't cause significant pain.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#373

Post by rimliu »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #173
robocat wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Fine numbers in the presence of a health system that is not overloaded, or a country that has managed to make effective changes to prevent transmission (how did they do that without science huh?) By John’s numbers (0.3% die and 1% of population) Italy should get a total of 1800 deaths. Yet Italy is at 6000 and rapidly rising -…

Many cases in SK and Germany have not resolved yet. I don’t think you can use those numbers so definitively.

Germany does not report resolved cases IIRC.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#374

Post by bluGill »

partiallypro wrote: post #7
RobertRoberts wrote: post #2

Common sense needs to prevail over mania, numbers over hyperbole and science over conjecture. But even then, this is hard if our data is collected poorly and then poorly disseminated. So what is the answer then? Maybe a strengthening of resolve against all forms of panic? Is there a single event in history has been solved by panic?

The craziest stat I heard today was on my local news, and it was about COVID19 in the county, Davidson County (Nashville, TN,) they said of all the active cases in the county only 2 had been hospitalized. That's out of 163. The others were sent home to be quarantined and medicated. I was floored. Why are stats like that not shared? That seems like very valuable information. Hospitalization rates should be one of the…

So far. How many of those will need hospital care in the next few weeks?

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#375

Post by tzone »

robocat wrote: post #135
Barrin92 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…

~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Fine numbers in the presence of a health system that is not overloaded, or a country that has managed to make effective changes to prevent transmission (how did they do that without science huh?) By John’s numbers (0.3% die and 1% of population) Italy should get a total of 1800 deaths. Yet Italy is at 6000 and rapidly rising -…

It takes ~2 weeks for a person to die after they get infected. So when you are looking at numbers from Germany, you should look at current death count / number of infected somewhere around 10-14 days ago.

While virus is actively spreading, taking "current death count / current total infected", can easily underestimate mortality rate by 5-10x because it takes quite a while from infection -> death.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#376

Post by rimliu »

im3w1l wrote: post #202
Barrin92 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…

> So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Korea have lost a magnitude of corpses somewhere. There is a third possibility. False positive tests: Germany and South Korea may have less cases than they think they do.

And the fourth: there were claims that only 12% Italy's COVID-19 deaths can be directly attributed to COVID-19.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#377

Post by rimliu »

robocat wrote: post #123
defen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.” Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? Where does the idea of 1% come fro…

> Furthermore, death isn't the only negative outcome - what do we know about permanent organ damage (lungs, heart, liver, kidneys) in survivors? Exactly: why all this focus on deaths, when sickness rates are massive and are sure to have horrific long terms outcomes for more people than those that die. Intensive care strongly implies bad things are happening. John Ioannidis has been a fabulous force for good fighting…

There is nothing "sure" about "horrific long terms outcomes".

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#378

Post by easytiger »

rramach wrote: post #174
Barrin92 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…

John's analysis is cherry picking in many ways. Death rate in Diamond Princess is 1.1% today and 2% is listed as severe. Assuming 50% of severe make it, final fatality rate for the ship may end up closer to 2%. John then adds a 50% discount factor but it is not clear how he picked that number. Also, the 1% of population infected seems to be another number pulled out of a hat. If we are basing our figures based only o…

Diamond Princess was largely elderly people.

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#379

Post by easytiger »

Retric wrote: post #315
rramach wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John's analysis is cherry picking in many ways. Death rate in Diamond Princess is 1.1% today and 2% is listed as severe. Assuming 50% of severe make it, final fatality rate for the ship may end up closer to 2%. John then adds a 50% discount factor but it is not clear how he picked that number. Also, the 1% of population infected seems to be another number pulled out of a hat. If we are basing our figures based only o…

The Dimond Princess was evacuated. It’s passengers where unusually healthy for their age range, and while older than the general population had few people over 85 which is the most at risk population. Further, these people got world class care from experts and whatever minimal care an overworked heath system could provide. Given all that they still had 9 deaths out of 712 infected with many still in critical conditio…

> It’s passengers where unusually healthy for their age range

based on what?

Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

#380

Post by rimliu »

michaelmcmillan wrote: post #360
cxhandley wrote: post #329

Imagine this. Your driving down the freeway at 60 mph, accelerating at 30%. The car in front of you puts on the breaks. Before you react, you first gather your speed gun, check the deceleration rate of the car in front, then calculate based on your speed when you should put your breaks on. I'm all for the scientific approach, but in this particular instance, our survival instincts need to take precedence. Please, we…

Stepping on the breaks perfectly align with what we know scientifically. People think of science as something very narrow – but it's also evidence and rationality. What China and South Korea have done works. What other alternatives do we have?

Except China and South Korea did different things.
Post reply on HN