Coronavirus and Credibility • Hacker News Board

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#591

Post by majormajor » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #392

MattRix wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A prediction that "this will happen, some time in the future" is not very useful Yes it is, if taken seriously.

What does "taken seriously" mean? We don't even know that from a prediction that vague. If the prediction is "we can expect a serious epidemic once every 10 years", then we have something definite that we can plan for, or at least discuss the costs of planning for. There's no way to discuss the costs of planning for "this will happen, some time in the future" without more detail.

Seems like the only correct response to that level of prediction is increasing investment in studying the problem.

Which has largely happened in a lot of areas...

except for the people who think the correct response is to ignore any prediction that isn't perfectly specific?

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#592

Post by sfkdjf9j3j » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

shakermakr wrote: post #580

throwaway5752 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Central America ( https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/eye-of-the-storm/fifth-... ), Syria ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096262981... ), Australia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bus... ), and Alaska https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/sockeye-salmon-and-cli... might beg to differ, among others. It is happening now. It's happening in line with predictions by IPCC. I…

Science isn’t consensus! Proof isn’t determined by “very nearly 100% of scientists agree”. Just ask Copernicus. We don’t vote on scientific proof. Yes evidence leads us to believe climate change is happening, but why and predicting it’s trajectory and effect should be met with scientific standards not scaremongering and “CLIMATE DENIER” hyperbole. If the pursuit of scientific rigour and fact has taught us anything ov…

I think you're not reading his comment in good faith. He's clearly not suggesting that whether or not something is true is decided by a vote of scientists. He's saying that the people who are most familiar with the science overwhelmingly believe that the evidence suggests that global warming is in fact real.

Further, people are wise to be skeptical or even dismissive of climate denialist claims because there is a long history of politically motivated people making deliberately but subtly specious arguments for it. Given both the overwhelming consensus and the glut of misinformation, it makes sense to filter it with a very high bar.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#593

Post by throwaway5752 » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

shakermakr wrote: post #580

throwaway5752 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Central America ( https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/eye-of-the-storm/fifth-... ), Syria ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096262981... ), Australia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bus... ), and Alaska https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/sockeye-salmon-and-cli... might beg to differ, among others. It is happening now. It's happening in line with predictions by IPCC. I…

Science isn’t consensus! Proof isn’t determined by “very nearly 100% of scientists agree”. Just ask Copernicus. We don’t vote on scientific proof. Yes evidence leads us to believe climate change is happening, but why and predicting it’s trajectory and effect should be met with scientific standards not scaremongering and “CLIMATE DENIER” hyperbole. If the pursuit of scientific rigour and fact has taught us anything ov…

You are right. It is decided because not only do almost 100% of climate scientists agree, but there in indisputable proof of the basic method of action (CO2, CH4, H20 greenhouse effects) and we can measure that effect in the lab and then correlated it to measured climate change that normalized for various known climate cycles. The consensus in the fields is driven by the overwhelming evidence of the multidisciplinary field results, experiments, and modeling.

The benefit of science (reproducibility, falsifiability) has been hacked by commercial interests. This isn't even in dispute (Heartland, IER, many others). Groups that dispute climate change are all funded by CO2 emitters and the results are coordinated by enormous lobbying and donation campaigns.

Flat earth proponents are not operating within a scientific framework of doubt and proof, and neither are climate change deniers.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#594

Post by ryguytilidie » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #590

throwaway5752 wrote: post #208

In the background global warming is a much greater threat to human life and has the exact same dynamic with the exact same players . There is also zero introspection - the people who were wrong about covid-19 are simply denying they said what they said. The truly scary part is they are getting away with it in real time, and changing a large populations' memory of contemporary events. I realize it's hard to remember f…

COVID-19 just isn't that important on the global scale. Car accidents last year almost certainly cost way more QALYs* than COVID-19 will this year (particularly if Imperial College in their 13th report is right about how badly undercounted the case numbers are). * Car accidents affect most ages and health levels relatively equally, while COVID-19 mostly kills the old and infirm who are unhealthy, with poor quality of…

You guys are still doing this..?

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#595

Post by lbeltrame » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

maps wrote: post #443

2bitencryption wrote: post #396

One thing I've had trouble reconciling is the fact that the CDC estimates 24k-63k deaths from the flu this flu season[0] We just passed 10k from covid-19. Only last week a "low" estimation of covid deaths this year was 200k. So it seems the expectation is there will be many, many more, and we're just at the start of all this. On the other hand, it also seems this week like the infamous curve is beginning to flatten,…

>Some of the clips show in the video referenced in the article actually seem pretty "sane" to me - the one guy saying "I'm not worried about getting this illness", another saying for most people it will seem just like the flu. Those two statements, as far as we know, are not that outlandish, right? I'm certainly not worried about myself, and for many people it does seem to be mild or asymptomatic? The flu season is 6…

> Now also consider that unlike flu, we have no vaccine and the virus kills people in the prime of their life just as much as the elderly.

Not with the same rates. This should be kept into account, because when lockdowns will be lifted (you will have to at some point, even if it's just to prevent people from becoming insane), you won't have a risk of 0, so letting the lowest-risk population out first is a goood bet.

> Now also consider that unlike flu, we have no vaccine

But there are drugs in development and in trial. None will work miracles, some will not work at all, some will have marginal impact, some will have a little more impact. Those are the best bets at this point in time.

Waiting out for a vaccine, like many governments are hoping for, is irrational IMO, because there's no guarantee that a working one will be found - and you can't lock up your population for 18 months, even if you don't factor the economy in, because people will be destroyed psychologically.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#596

Post by seppin » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #217

basch wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>any amount of fact checking in politics don't change political views. That is what I was thinking. Paul is writing as if credibility stems from reality. When in reality, the reverse its true. Fox news is credible, its viewers believe that, and whatever those credible people say, is reality. As long as people keep tuned in only to Fox News, that reality wont shatter. Their credibility exists because of their reach, i…

The problem is that the channel is named "fox news", but they have both news shows (which are actually not bad), and opinion programming, which is pretty terrible. I suspect most people don't really make a distinction between the two.

Why would you assume they want to? Opinion shows are the only thing watched on Fox News, they are the primetime lineup. Everything else is filler.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#597

Post by usaar333 » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

aianus wrote: post #588

usaar333 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are likely not considering that even the younger are taking as much as a 1% risk of their life, which is incredibly high. Depending on factors like the load on the medical community at the time and others, it can get as high as 5% or more quite easily as we have seen around the world. Currently using only napkin math from the numbers here[1], the death rate is currently at just under 4% over all age groups in…

> All said, a 0.1% death rate is still pretty dangerous and catching the disease is something like raising your risk of death by 50% in a given year. Lockdowns are still justified under those numbers. 0.1% of the rest of my life is ~3 weeks. The lockdown has already cost me more of my life than a confirmed case of COVID-19 would (on average). And the math doesn't get much better the older you get, an 85 year old has…

That is an interesting point and I'm not sure how public health officials are treating it. I'm in tech WFH so I don't see even half my life being lost from the lockdown (maybe 20%), but YMMV.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#598

Post by FabHK » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #246

throwaway5752 wrote: post #208

In the background global warming is a much greater threat to human life and has the exact same dynamic with the exact same players . There is also zero introspection - the people who were wrong about covid-19 are simply denying they said what they said. The truly scary part is they are getting away with it in real time, and changing a large populations' memory of contemporary events. I realize it's hard to remember f…

> In the background global warming is a much greater threat to human life Before making such a confident statement, I would recommend re-reading this particular statement in pg's essay... "These people constantly make false predictions, and get away with it, because the things they make predictions about either have mushy enough outcomes that they can bluster their way out of trouble, or happen so far in the future t…

Your response is quite remarkable. PG's article contrasts 1) the careful predictions of experts, who study an issue in depth their entire life and pronounce on it carefully based on scientific models, with 2) the remarks of politically motivated hacks that seek to distract from the consensus for their own political agenda, often with remarkable (but unjustified) confidence.

PG warns against 2), the hacks, and points out that here we can see how utterly wrong they are, because the time frame is so short.

Now, GP points out that something similar happens regarding climate change, with 1') climate scientists and 2') climate change denial, and you take PG's warning against facile hacks (ie 2') and apply it to 1'), the climate scientists and experts? That's quite some nerve.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#599

Post by pacomerh » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

nyczomg wrote: post #379

enraged_camel wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> CNN/Fox/MSNBC One of those is not like the other two. CNN and MSNBC may not be as high quality as WaPo/NYTimes in terms of depth and quality of journalism, but they also don't maliciously and cynically and shamelessly lie to their viewers.

LOL. I don't have time to compile the numerous examples of CNN maliciously, cynically, and shamelessly to their users, so I'll just post my favorite example: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749117502119936?lang... Chris Cuomo looking into the camera, and telling America it is illegal for them to go to wikileaks. But it's ok, the media is exempted from that and they'll make sure to tell you ALL of the importan…

I don't disagree with your CNN comment, but the severity, consistency and magnitude of F-NEWS's lies doesn't compete with anyone tbh. They're on their own category.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#600

Post by lbeltrame » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

rjtavares wrote: post #240

amenod wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: what are you basing this on? Do you have some statistical data that shows hospitalization rates of young people _because of_ (instead of just _with_) corona virus? I myself haven't yet seen any data that would make this virus any worse than the flu (which means it's still dangerous, just maybe not "everybody-hide-under-the-rock" dangerous). Even data from Italy doesn't show mortality any higher than previous…

> Do you have some statistical data that shows hospitalization rates of young people _because of_ (instead of just _with_) corona virus? Doesn't that require a study after the fact? So your proposal is to just wait and see? BTW, how do you explain the unprecedented hospitalization and ICU rates in Northern Italy? As an example, this report from European Society of Anaesthesiology[1] mentions: > The number of intensiv…

> BTW, how do you explain the unprecedented hospitalization and ICU rates in Northern Italy?

A lot of people aren't tested unless they are severely sick, they're just told to stay at home.

When they arrive in the hospital they're already in a pretty bad condition, and only then tested. Which means that no therapeutic actions are made until patients are admitted, with the exception of self-administration of paracetamol.

> The number of intensive care beds in Italy continues to change. Initially, there were 500 public intensive care (ICU) beds in Lombardy, and 140 private ICU beds. However, now there are more than 900.

But a lot of ICU beds were slashed in the past 10 years due to budget cuts, and we were at 80% capacity when the virus hit. If the testing keeps on like this, and we can't even palliatively treat patients until they start suffering respiratory problems, these problems will continue.