TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

On “Armchair Epidemiology”

67 pointsby ssklashabout 5 years ago

19 comments

notacowardabout 5 years ago
There are two things seriously wrong with this article.<p>(1) It treats authorities and non-authorities as monolithic. Far from it. There were plenty of serious, well qualified epidemiologists who were warning of the danger, and they were right. There were even more non-serious people using their popularity in completely unrelated fields to minimize the danger, and they were wrong. Sadly there still are, most definitely including here. Yes, the people in the actual seats of US federal power got it wrong, and plenty of amateurs got it right, but it&#x27;s more complicated than the &quot;don&#x27;t trust experts&quot; narrative.<p>(2) Sample of one. Even if it weren&#x27;t for the above, and the two groups were monolithic, this is just one case where the authorities were wrong and others were right. Yes, it&#x27;s a very <i>prominent</i> case because of the consequences, but prominence is not the same as statistical significance. Treating it so is a form of cognitive bias&#x2F;error.<p>The real lesson here is not to distrust experts or authorities. It&#x27;s not to trust conspiracy theorists or people with whom we empathize more because they&#x27;re in our own industry. It&#x27;s to trust <i>science itself</i> - empirical facts and analysis applied to facts. Both experts and others can help us to interpret those facts, put them in perspective, correct common errors in analysis, but ultimately it should be the facts that rule. The reason so many authorities and non-authorities were wrong is because they rejected the scientific approach, not because of who they are.
评论 #22739450 未加载
screyeabout 5 years ago
What has struck me most about Epidemiology, are the qualifications needed to be someone pursuing a career in it.<p>It seems like an Epidemiologist is most likely to be a doctor with some knowledge of statistics. On the contrary, I would have thought that a statistician&#x2F;operations research person with domain knowledge of medicine would be a lot better suited to study epidemiology.<p>A lot of the existing models also seem really naïve for something an entire field depends on. Tradeoffs between human life lost due to the disease and effective human lives lost due to economic downturns seem entirely unstudied.<p>Czechia&#x27;s actions of forcing people to using masks seems to have worked amazingly well for flattening out the curve. The &quot;science&quot; not seems to support it, and official recommendations are now moving back to recommending masks for all. The popular hypothesis for this, is that it stops nonsymptomatic carriers from being spreaders.<p>Now this sounds like a fairly obvious thing to realize, and to an extent, existing models should have caught this a lot earlier.<p>I grew up as a kid with an almost religious belief in Science. Over time, I have come to realize that a lot of our sciences are at best empirical and at worst entirely unverifiable. I am a 100% certain, that in a 100 years, we will look at medicine and nutrition of the 2000s, the way we look at humors and blood letting.
评论 #22735487 未加载
评论 #22735829 未加载
评论 #22734831 未加载
tjr225about 5 years ago
If this current situation has taught me anything it is that the internet is a mush of armchair garbage and it’s overwhelming to decipher- yes even what I’m typing now.<p>The whole thing has me desperate to ignore everyone and read a book. What a joke; to think we are all somehow experts.
评论 #22734429 未加载
评论 #22734336 未加载
评论 #22734212 未加载
评论 #22734959 未加载
评论 #22734291 未加载
评论 #22734261 未加载
knzhouabout 5 years ago
This whole mess has been a repudiation of business-as-usual politics, but it has <i>not</i> been a repudiation of scientific experts.<p>Scientific experts across the world have been alarmed for months now. The only problem is that, as with any new and uncertainty situation, the error bars started absolutely enormous, so the range of expert opinion has been wide. This is the case in any crisis. With the benefit of hindsight, you can <i>always</i> find <i>an</i> expert who was wrong, but that doesn&#x27;t mean anything.<p>It&#x27;s important to say this because later, you&#x27;re going to start to hear bloviating from politicians who failed to act for months. &quot;Nobody knew this was coming.&quot; &quot;Everything that went wrong was solely the fault of $enemy_country or $rival_party.&quot;
评论 #22740100 未加载
wwwestonabout 5 years ago
Relate to a lot of this (and it&#x27;s especially worth noting there is something about identity contempt especially on social media but also IRL that hobbles our ability to coordinate understanding and action) but... let&#x27;s also not forget it wasn&#x27;t only contrarians and autodidacts who were making concerned noises -- there are plenty of professional epidemiologists and other specialists who were beating the warning drums.
评论 #22734840 未加载
btillyabout 5 years ago
Looking back at my thinking at the same time I am also ashamed at how slow I was to realize it.<p>I also trusted in our institutions. I knew what lengths that they went to in SARS. I understood how much thought has gone into public health. I found articles explaining why one would rationally ration available tests. Even when it was clear to me that we were in for a pandemic and millions would die, I completely failed to predict that we&#x27;d be willing to put Western countries in lockdown - or that lockdown would be as effective as it has been.<p>I probably came to the right conclusion before Scott did. But still the only thing that I did right with my knowledge was to tell my wife to buy a put on the DOW back when it was still rising.
naringasabout 5 years ago
this whole covid19 debacle is exposing a very real change brought about by the internet.<p>we are being forced to adapt and to develop new ways to relate to information, to asses it&#x27;s trustworthiness, etc...<p>it&#x27;s an epistemic phenomenon. perhaps another facet of this phenomenon are the filtered information bubbles.<p>But this pandemic really puts the pressure on us to face the reality of our current information society.
jasonhanselabout 5 years ago
&gt; A viral article implores us to “flatten the curve of armchair epidemiology”—that is, to listen only to authoritive sources like the CDC, not random people spouting on social media.<p>&gt; This was notable to me for being the diametric opposite of the actual lesson of the past two months.<p>So, because some (unspecified, unnamed) experts weren&#x27;t able to predict the future with perfect accuracy, we should give equal credence to &quot;random people&quot; instead?<p>Medical professionals, scientists, and public health experts are still the best available source of knowledge about preventing the growth of this pandemic.<p>Spreading the message that we should ignore epidemiologists is wrong at best and dangerous at worst.
评论 #22734380 未加载
评论 #22734410 未加载
评论 #22734383 未加载
评论 #22734412 未加载
评论 #22734360 未加载
评论 #22734386 未加载
empath75about 5 years ago
There are people still, in every thread here about it, downplaying it.<p>I’m sure someone will be along momentarily to tell us that it’s no worse than seasonal flu.
elchiefabout 5 years ago
Who should we believe, then, the WHO? They told us China had it under control, and not to wear masks
评论 #22734323 未加载
评论 #22734289 未加载
apatilabout 5 years ago
I sent a similar text to a medically vulnerable friend on Jan 25 saying I thought it was &quot;scary, but not the scariest thing in the world right now&quot;, despite having spent some time working with an epidemiology research group. In hindsight, I knew enough to take the risk much more seriously.<p>This article: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;virologydownunder.com&#x2F;past-time-to-tell-the-public-it-will-probably-go-pandemic-and-we-should-all-prepare-now&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;virologydownunder.com&#x2F;past-time-to-tell-the-public-i...</a>, plus the rising mortality numbers, spurred me to start warning the medically vulnerable people in my life on Feb 23. I am very grateful to the authors for helping me do the right thing.<p>At this point, it seems to me that our experts are still letting us down in two important ways:<p>1. They aren&#x27;t rebutting this implicit notion that any mortality risk below 1% can be rounded down to zero. As a consequence, the idea that it might be a good idea to let younger, healthy people just go out and get the virus and get immune seems to still have currency, and this is really dangerous. We can&#x27;t open things back up until we have a credible plan for driving the infection rate toward zero. Leaving aside the risk of life-changing injury, a mortality risk of eg 0.5% applied to eg half of young adults would still be by far the most dangerous thing that happens to most of them this year, and a huge personal tragedy for many of us. Do the math and work out how many people you know would die.<p>2. Simple, inexpensive measures like widespread masking, handwashing, gloves and eye protection will clearly be important components of any credible plan for driving the infection rate toward zero, unless we get an early vaccine. The experts should be hammering the point that we all need to be fastidious about those things whenever we open back up again.
fellowniusmonkabout 5 years ago
Caveat Emptor is one of the deepest truths, whether shopping on amazon or listening to experts of different stripes, there has been enough information on the internet to come to accurate conclusions at every step, enough historical info from sars and spanish flu to see what could have been coming down the pipe, enough social media leak from China to tell that this was not contained, the choice is not between obliviousness or panic it&#x27;s about prudent low cost risk mitigation.<p>The fact is, that many people&#x27;s internal information filtering algorithm is lacking, small preparation is sufficient 90% of the time as long as you are looking at slow moving historic signals, it&#x27;s about small risk mitigations early.<p>As played out as it is, this is further proof that the medium is the message, people engaging in unidirectional or bidirectional firehose messaging (cable tv, twitter, facebook) have tended towards panic or dismissiveness, people following historical information and slowly changing documents and global forums have been able to take prudent low cost risk mitigation, and by doing it early have operated comfortably on a different wavelength than people panic buying.<p>Unstructured messaging and it&#x27;s cognitive overhead is a problem, unstructured messaging means that even if the inbound message is about the issue currently in your head, the design of &quot;alerts&quot; trigger a disruptive near context switch, like a digital doorway effect that sabotages deep thinking, deep thinking is required for prudence.<p>People still don&#x27;t understand how bad this is though, for Americans, I&#x27;m only just now seeing a few people and articles connect the dots on bio warfare preparedness and how our asymmetrically weak and discordant response puts the U.S. at increased risk from a national security and power projection perspective. These aren&#x27;t truths per se, just probability curves.<p>As an example, since mid December I&#x27;ve been gently decreasing my downside risk, divesting and putting a few dollars here and there into things like masks and non perishables, already had a bidet, water filter, UV lamps, etc. No special preparation just things I already have around the house for my aquarium, camping, spray painting, hot ones challenges, etc. I haven&#x27;t had to wait in any grocery lines or experience any personal discomfort or anxiety, and my slightly early social distancing was subtle enough most people didn&#x27;t even notice. I was telling people who asked &quot;These might be historic times, low cost preparation is in order.&quot;<p>All this is from an individuals perspective, businesses should already be operating with risk management plans.
modzuabout 5 years ago
this is borderline terrorism, imo. right from the into, &quot;Dr. A...&quot; which to a layman would reasonably interpet as meaning &quot;M.D&quot; rather than professor of computer science. the one thing i have noticed in all this is the utterly astonishing abandonment of science, reason, and rationality. that scares me much more than disease.
评论 #22734285 未加载
zozbot234about 5 years ago
Hindsight is always 20&#x2F;20.
darawkabout 5 years ago
What&#x27;s particularly impressive about this situation is that all the institutions on all sides got it wrong. Trump and his administration downplayed it, <i>and</i> Vox, Wapo, NYT et al downplayed it. You would think these two would act as a check on one another, but they completely failed to do so. The one time we needed them to disagree with each other, they agreed forcefully.
hirundoabout 5 years ago
&quot;A viral article implores us to ... to listen only to authoritive sources like the CDC, not random people spouting on social media. This was notable to me for being the diametric opposite of the actual lesson of the past two months&quot;<p>This is the opposite sentiment to &quot;there are no libertarians in pandemics.&quot; Keen perception of reality is unlikely to be concentrated at the top of political hierarchies. Competent Authority isn&#x27;t an oxymoron but it&#x27;s distressingly unreliable.
bJGVygG7MQVF8cabout 5 years ago
&gt; I sent a quick reply two minutes later:<p>&gt; For now, I think the risk from the ordinary flu is much much greater! But worth watching to see if it becomes a real pandemic.<p>Nope. Lost all credibility right there. Do not pass GO, do not collect 2 minutes of attention. Sorry.<p>Oh, you&#x27;ve learned something from the error and you&#x27;ve updated your priors? Great, good for you. You&#x27;re still unreliable.
评论 #22734586 未加载
whatever1about 5 years ago
Let&#x27;s talk first about the domain experts, professors in prestigious universities, that were reassuring the public that COVID-19 is no way more fatal than the seasonal flu [1]. The same moment that the ICUs in Italy and Spain were already overwhelmed and the physicians could not find the necessary protective equipment to keep saving lives.<p>Are there gonna be any legal repercussions to these?<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-11585088464" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as...</a>
评论 #22746955 未加载
评论 #22734266 未加载
评论 #22734226 未加载
alexandercrohdeabout 5 years ago
This is a topic that seems to be in a perverse conflict of interests.<p>A. Politicians have interests representing themselves as well as their country, and thus have given dishonest advice (masks don&#x27;t help) with an ulterior motive (save them for hospital), downplayed the problem, and covered up the number of cases.<p>B. I think a lot of actually qualified experts (doctors, scientists) to think the public can&#x27;t handle the truth perhaps? I still have yet to see anybody in any position of respect or authority simply say the bald truth: &quot;A few million Americans will die, at least, unless some radical cure happens. Social distancing is a drop in the bucket, ventilators make a tiny difference. The vast majority of young people will be totally fine&quot;<p>I&#x27;m disappointed in our society for failing to bubble up and synthesize good information quickly.
评论 #22734273 未加载
评论 #22734303 未加载