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

Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 837 posts

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#821

Post by clairity »

jimkleiber wrote: post #820
clairity wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, it’s miscalibrations of risk, but not necessarily numerical imprecision, that prods my reaction. it’s possible to kill grandma, in many different ways, but it’s not probable, unless intentionally reckless or malevolent. risk is inherent to life, and we need to be continually adjusting our risk assessments so that our individual and collective behaviors approach consistency.

I think the challenge with "easily" "possible" and "probable" is that they are imprecise and often very subjective. One person's "possible" could be another person's "probable." Looking at stats from Nov 2020 for infection fatality rates[1] (I didn't know the difference among infection fatality rates, case fatality rates, and crude mortality rates until after I had read this[2]), a female over the age of 80 who contr…

yes, that's the calibration aspect of it. for instance, we implicitly accept a 1% lifetime chance of dying in a car accident because of the great utility of automobiles. that's a useful calibration point because it has (nearly) universal acceptance and application.

a 6% chance of dying is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still far from probable, which by definition is more likely than not (>50%). and while it's 6 times death-by-car, it's also dependent on contracting covid in the first place (a prior, in bayesian terms). and that prior probability depends largely on whether the grandchild has covid themselves and how contagious they are (how much and where the virus is), and given that as an additional prior, what relevant precautions they take. this chain of dependent probabilities is also why most precautions have marginal effect (because multiplying lots of fractional numbers results in a smaller fraction). none of this chain of reasoning requires great precision by the way; a single digit of significance at each step being plenty for sound decision-making.

finally, note that a 100-year-old has a 30-35% all-cause chance of death: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html . the addition of covid risk is not immaterial, but relatively not overwhelming.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#822

Post by jimkleiber »

clairity wrote: post #821
jimkleiber wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the challenge with "easily" "possible" and "probable" is that they are imprecise and often very subjective. One person's "possible" could be another person's "probable." Looking at stats from Nov 2020 for infection fatality rates[1] (I didn't know the difference among infection fatality rates, case fatality rates, and crude mortality rates until after I had read this[2]), a female over the age of 80 who contr…

yes, that's the calibration aspect of it. for instance, we implicitly accept a 1% lifetime chance of dying in a car accident because of the great utility of automobiles. that's a useful calibration point because it has (nearly) universal acceptance and application. a 6% chance of dying is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still far from probable, which by definition is more likely than not (>50%). and while it's 6 times…

I appreciate these points, especially about the chain of dependent probabilities. Things can become much less likely depending on many different variables and such.

I guess for me, and maybe for the person with the grandma as well, emotions sway my perception of how risky something is or not, especially with covid. While my mom was going thru chemo, I was already worried that she might die from cancer, and then more so that I would bring a regular flu to her when she was immunocompromised and accelerate that process. Covid-19 stopped me in my tracks, a level of fear I can't recall feeling, that just by being in the same room with my mom and having conversation with her, I could possibly cause her death.

If a grandma of mine were to die from a broken hip, which is probably much more statistically likely than covid-19, I most certainly wouldn't feel as much anger towards myself and regret as if she would die from covid-19 and I had thought I gave it to her.

When my parents got vaccinated, I felt a huge relief, knowing that their probability of dying seemed to drop even more than where it was, almost to zero (I believe), which I probably had originally exaggerated due to fear, and yet, almost all of that fear disappeared for me.

I guess if anything, this thread has helped me pause and reflect on just how much my own emotional state can influence how I see risk, both amplifying or minimizing it away from its more mathematical reality. Thank you for helping me realize this.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#823

Post by clairity »

jimkleiber wrote: post #822
clairity wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, that's the calibration aspect of it. for instance, we implicitly accept a 1% lifetime chance of dying in a car accident because of the great utility of automobiles. that's a useful calibration point because it has (nearly) universal acceptance and application. a 6% chance of dying is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still far from probable, which by definition is more likely than not (>50%). and while it's 6 times…

I appreciate these points, especially about the chain of dependent probabilities. Things can become much less likely depending on many different variables and such. I guess for me, and maybe for the person with the grandma as well, emotions sway my perception of how risky something is or not, especially with covid. While my mom was going thru chemo, I was already worried that she might die from cancer, and then more…

awesome, outsized emotional influence on risk assessment is tough to talk about rationally, but it's so important to public policy discussions, not to mention our daily decisions. it takes a lot of emotional sturdiness to self-examine that way.

regarding covid risk, it makes sense to take precautions around the elderly and infirm, because while the risk isn't overwhelming, it's still relatively significant, and feeling relief by taking those precautions is totally understandable. it's just the extrapolation of that kind of situation to blanket public policy that really doesn't make sense (because risk varies so widely for the whole gamut of daily circumstances).

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#824

Post by rob_c »

tomp wrote: post #318
rob_c wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The experts selling it? The experts politically mandating the pisspoor sales contracts? Or the experts who say a natural response to covid is better and that they'll be sued for saying this publically after the reddit "I know science mob" is through with them?... Frankly it was about capacity. If enough get critically I'll we go into triage and kill oaps by prioritising treatment. The fact the vaccine is linked with…

Looks like we agree? That people should take the vaccine to save themselves (from having to go into the hospital and be triaged...)

But frankly if our healthcare wasn't stretched to breaking point we wouldn't be seeing so much triage.

And if the vaccine actually was a complete vaccine at the same efficacy of wet vaccine from other diseases then transmission would drop and we wouldn't be talking about boosters, catching it after vaccination and frankly the estimates of total hospitalisation rates due to covid were about as reliable as a chocolate tea pot.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#825

Post by rob_c »

jeromegv wrote: post #214
rob_c wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just US, I would say there's a large number of very well educated people even in well off countries who have a large amount of hesitation toward this mainly due to information handling and lack of transparency. (Yes there is a very vocal anti-vax nut job crowd, but frankly that will always be there, and is always different to those who object to policy decisions on moral grounds of their failings and the deaths t…

Just look at data of percentage of people vaccinated in the western world where supply is actually available for anyone to take the vaccine right now. The US is last. There is something specific to the US here.

And look at the geographical distributions of low vaccine rates. Is very low in very wealthy parts of the UK where house prices are astronomical vs high dentisty pupation centers.

Why should most of London be at a higher vaccination rates than Oxford or Cambridge city centres? There is clear hesitancy here of some small groups that live near universities and make up <5% of the population. (Source ONS UK stats)

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#826

Post by moistly »

rc2634 wrote: post #545
moistly wrote: post #353

Disappointed to see so much bald-faced lying in the comments. I really don’t understand why the most egregious liars aren’t given the boot.

Because HN wants to treat its users as adults who can judge for themselves whether they should or shouldn’t believe something they are reading? Why do you want to censor and stifle discussions that could possibly convert the person telling the lie because of some misunderstanding to change their views and accept a different perspective?

Note my use of the word “egregious.” Thank you.

The egregious liars have no desire to change their views. They desire to misinform and distract you, to waste your energies, to obfuscate truthful and valuable discussion. They are poison to informed discussion.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#827

Post by mistermann »

fortuna86 wrote: post #772
mistermann wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious: what percentage of the population tries to understand the complexities of reality, by your standard?

5% perhaps. Everyone else is busy working.

That sounds about right, maybe a bit optimistic.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#828

Post by sto_hristo »

betterunix2 wrote: post #68
sto_hristo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such pandemics don't start every other year. Last great one was 100 years ago. So i wouldn't worry at all for the "winners", there's plenty of time for generations to refresh. Worry about government's inability to learn and improve based on past mistakes, also complacency. It's not hard to imagine 100 years from now, popular presidential guy spearheading the next great pandemic, calming the subjects down with the gre…

...are you not counting HIV as a recent major pandemic? SARS? MERS? It is also worth remembering that for decades we have been carefully monitoring the spread of infectious diseases to prevent major pandemics from forming. There was no political controversy surrounding those efforts prior to COVID19, not in the US or anywhere else.

Major - yes. "Great" - far from it. COVID is basically unstoppable despite the draconian measures lots of countries took. Post SMS if you're going out, yet your hospitals remain overloaded - HIV, SARS, MERS don't even come close to that.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#829

Post by sto_hristo »

nradov wrote: post #361
djrogers wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those have had the global impact of COVID-19, so it think it's pretty easy to not count them as on the same level.

Compared to COVID-19, HIV/AIDS has killed far more people worldwide and has an untreated fatality rate orders of magnitude higher. But it spreads and progresses more slowly so it seems less dramatic.

HIV was discovered in the 80s of a past century. COVID rocked the world since month 1 of its inception and to this day keeps on rocking, despite the radical measures to contain it and the unseen global vaccination campaign.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#830

Post by jimkleiber »

clairity wrote: post #823
jimkleiber wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate these points, especially about the chain of dependent probabilities. Things can become much less likely depending on many different variables and such. I guess for me, and maybe for the person with the grandma as well, emotions sway my perception of how risky something is or not, especially with covid. While my mom was going thru chemo, I was already worried that she might die from cancer, and then more…

awesome, outsized emotional influence on risk assessment is tough to talk about rationally, but it's so important to public policy discussions, not to mention our daily decisions. it takes a lot of emotional sturdiness to self-examine that way. regarding covid risk, it makes sense to take precautions around the elderly and infirm, because while the risk isn't overwhelming, it's still relatively significant, and feeli…

> awesome, outsized emotional influence on risk assessment is tough to talk about rationally, but it's so important to public policy discussions, not to mention our daily decisions.

Yeah, the more I think about, I wonder just how many pandemic decisions have been made by conflicting emotions, especially conflicting fears. Me afraid of my mom dying of cancer + giving her covid-19, others afraid they'll lose the restaurant that they've poured their life into, others afraid the government is using covid-19 as an excuse to gain more control over their lives and steal their property, etc. I talked with a friend the other day who isn't vaccinated and said, "Ya know, if I get covid and die, maybe it's my time." Made me think just how much more I seem to fear death than that person does.

I was listening a little to Sanjay Gupta's conversation with Joe Rogan and one point he made that I liked was talking about how sometimes the conversation about covid-19 risk becomes life or death, overlooking the possible negative effects of just having the virus itself.

> it's just the extrapolation of that kind of situation to blanket public policy that really doesn't make sense (because risk varies so widely for the whole gamut of daily circumstances).

I agree in that risk is widely distributed and it's one of the reasons why I love the idea of decision making at different levels and the concept of federalism in general. I think where it can be a struggle, especially in our current forms of government, is when people cross geographical boundaries. As people move from one place to another (and maybe even as we communicate and therefore virtually feel in many places at the same time or in this one large place together), standardization almost becomes required to make things work. Setting aside the conversation about medical validity of vaccines for a second, one thing they do is help to standardize someone's status for communication to other entities. As someone who (used to) travels a lot internationally, something like a vaccine passport (which they've done for yellow fever for years) makes it easier to verify someone's medical status. Possible to do with covid-19 positive tests as well, just maybe more complex, not sure.

Anyway, I get the feeling you and I could go back and forth for hours on probably any topic lol.

Post reply on HN