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

91–100 of 341 posts

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

#91

Post by Aachen »

Amorymeltzer wrote: post #43

For those curious (as I was) what he's using, it looks like Stata: https://www.reed.edu/psychology/stata/analyses/parametric/Re...

Was looking for a download, but there's precious little about that on the website. The closest I got were these remarks:

> On all Reed lab computers, Stata is located in the Applications folder.

> Stata can be found in the Applications folder of any school machine. On a PC, it is most likely located in Program Files.

Does that imply it's neither open source nor even commercially available? Seems rather odd, surely it is either of those two

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

#92

Post by fwungy »

sarchertech wrote: post #40
fwungy wrote: post #25

I really don't trust any of the numbers on covid. A vaccine for a dangerous illness that can affect billions of people is a very big payday. There's lots of money to spread around to politicians, corrupt scientists, and corrupt media. I'd like to see a real scientific debate with adversarial inquiry so we could know if numbers are being fudged and which ones they are. I trust science, but not greed driven capitalists…

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines have been approved by the national health agencies of dozens of countries, and China has approved a very similar home grown mRNA Covid vaccine. No amount of money in the world could pay to do that and keep it secret.

Corrupt government officials get a commission on big contracts. It happens all the time. Why do you think people spend so much campaigning for low paying political offices? They can be quite lucrative investments. There are NDAs and other threats to shutdown whistleblowers.

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

#93

Post by jonstewart »

ggm wrote: post #86
jonstewart wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you’re saying it’s a lot, lot rarer than Covid alarmists think… because you don’t personally know anyone with it?

Yes. That's how anecdata works. If enough people observe they don't know anyone either with or post long covid, it starts to move significance. I've known two people with ME over 50 years and it doesn't alter my sense of their personal anguish or its economic and wider health consequences. I have no doubt long covid exists and will need significant funding in research and targeted health care. It won't need as much a…

I’ve never known anyone to justify an argument explicitly using anecdata unironically. Amazing, no notes.

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

#94

Post by mb7733 »

Aachen wrote: post #91
Amorymeltzer wrote: post #43

For those curious (as I was) what he's using, it looks like Stata: https://www.reed.edu/psychology/stata/analyses/parametric/Re...

Was looking for a download, but there's precious little about that on the website. The closest I got were these remarks: > On all Reed lab computers, Stata is located in the Applications folder. > Stata can be found in the Applications folder of any school machine. On a PC, it is most likely located in Program Files. Does that imply it's neither open source nor even commercially available? Seems rather odd, surely it…

That isn't the home page for Stata, that is a page put up by Reed about where to find Stata on their computers. Go to stata.com

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

#95

Post by cm2012 »

KerrAvon wrote: post #2

This is all fine, but the focus on deaths is sort of missing the larger societal problem. The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. edit: Which is to say: The Great Barrington Declaration was wrong directionally as well. We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much a…

Good news then that long covid is probably not a real issue

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

#96

Post by mb7733 »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #57
KerrAvon wrote: post #2

This is all fine, but the focus on deaths is sort of missing the larger societal problem. The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. edit: Which is to say: The Great Barrington Declaration was wrong directionally as well. We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much a…

> None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. I love doom more than the average person, by what I would say is a quite significant margin... but I don't see this at all. I've had covid at least twice, including some awful symptoms a month after recovery that had me convinced I had long covid as well... a few months later (now years) not so much. While I do know many people of who have lost loved ones from Covid,…

> A lot of people (not me) did believe there was going to be a return to normal post-covid, and the increasingly obvious impossibility of this is causing people to have tremendous mental health problems

What is not normal in your opinion at this point? Covid still exists as another illness that goes around, but from my point of view everything else has been back to normal for quite a while.

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

#97

Post by autoexec »

umvi wrote: post #48
KerrAvon wrote: post #2

This is all fine, but the focus on deaths is sort of missing the larger societal problem. The COVID devastation is also about long COVID, and even people who had COVID but either recovered “fully” or never displayed symptoms. None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. edit: Which is to say: The Great Barrington Declaration was wrong directionally as well. We really needed to optimize to eliminate COVID as much a…

> None of this is over, and we are so, so fucked. In what sense? I'm in a deep red state, and I haven't noticed much "devastation" in my community due to COVID. Seems like you can work yourself up about anything. Doomscroll enough Type 2 diabetes articles and you'll convince yourself that COVID is the absolute least of USA's public health problems compared to the complications resulting from that.

Why not both? COVID outcomes tend to be worse for diabetics and COVID infection increases the risk of developing diabetes as well.

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

#98

Post by Aachen »

iwonthecase wrote: post #31
wilg wrote: post #11

I'm excited to find out in 20 years what the deal was with Covid once everybody has forgotten all their political opinions.

Good luck, there's still academics debating about the 1977 "Russian" flu [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Russian_flu

> The outbreak in northern China started in May 1977

Coincidence? Do they have a climate conducive to these sorts of viruses combined with a large enough population to make it likely they get infected first or is this my selection bias in noticing when it says "started in China" versus any other country?

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

#99

Post by xboxnolifes »

abirch wrote: post #55
MauranKilom wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a bystander this seems accurate, but at the end of the article Nate himself states that he has little hope that it will convince people on Twitter/X. It's more about credibility to his own readership, I suppose.

Getting in an argument (vs disagreement) in real life is worthless. Getting into an argument on the Internet has even less value. Personally I think this was an easy article for him to write because he already had the data and he wants more subscribers (please take this take as neutral opinion and not a dis to Silver)

It's worthless if your goal is to influence your direct opposition. It's not worthless if your goal is to influence the curious on-lookers.

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

#100

Post by fwungy »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #58
fwungy wrote: post #25

I really don't trust any of the numbers on covid. A vaccine for a dangerous illness that can affect billions of people is a very big payday. There's lots of money to spread around to politicians, corrupt scientists, and corrupt media. I'd like to see a real scientific debate with adversarial inquiry so we could know if numbers are being fudged and which ones they are. I trust science, but not greed driven capitalists…

What does adversarial inquiry look like?

A debate in real time between qualified adversaries. Treat these things like you're making a major investment. Make both sides answer hard questions from each other.

For example have RFK and Fauci put together teams of MDs and PhDs to debate in a live event.

Post reply on HN