TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Renewed questions about the virus, and hard-to-face answers

62 点作者 AndrewBissell将近 4 年前

17 条评论

snowwrestler将近 4 年前
It’s important to remember the public demand for safety.<p>My child’s school district went remote when I and thousands of other parents told teachers and administrators at individual schools that we were pulling our kids out regardless of their policies.<p>Same with work: I told my manager in the 3rd week of March I was working remotely starting the following week. So many others did the same thing that my employer closed the office and went remote. My wife’s company also voluntarily went remote the same week.<p>This was all before state mandated closures and lockdowns, etc. People, in huge numbers, started trying to protect themselves and their families. We had NO IDEA how this virus was going to progress, and what we would learn the hard way.<p>In retrospect, it’s beneficial to a certain point of view to reframe what happened as some sort of top-down authoritarian dystopia. But the reality at the time was bottom-up and we should not forget that.
评论 #27668904 未加载
评论 #27668561 未加载
评论 #27669436 未加载
评论 #27668678 未加载
评论 #27668575 未加载
评论 #27668817 未加载
评论 #27688933 未加载
评论 #27668582 未加载
评论 #27669127 未加载
ctoth将近 4 年前
&gt; In the U.S. 78% of people hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese.<p>According to [0], 70.2% of US adults are overweight or obese. The base rate seems like an important fact when making this point.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.niddk.nih.gov&#x2F;health-information&#x2F;health-statistics&#x2F;overweight-obesity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.niddk.nih.gov&#x2F;health-information&#x2F;health-statisti...</a>
评论 #27668488 未加载
javagram将近 4 年前
&gt; A trove of media darling Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails was recently released to the public. The emails reveal early assertions that asymptomatic transmission is rare, that post-infection immunity is highly likely, and that masks are “not really effective.” However, you wouldn’t know that from the public messaging since the start of the pandemic, in which bureaucrats and journalists upheld lasting misconceptions that asymptomatic cases are dangerous, natural immunity is not a factor in protecting the population, and individuals are responsible for viral spread. These misconceptions fueled countless months of lockdowns, business closures, and job losses<p>This article is a complete mess in this section. Yes, emails from February 2020 revealed the scientific community still had a lack of understanding of the virus’ ability to spread from a pre-symptomatic host (often confused or merged with “asymptomatic” hosts who seem to typically not transmit due to lower viral load).<p>That isn’t exactly a scandal, it’s exactly what was being said publicly at the time too. There wasn’t anything surprising in the emails to anyone who followed the news and discussion in March-May 2020. We all saw, for instance, Fauci in the White House insisting 6 feet was enough to protect people because droplets from a cough don’t travel farther (wrong: overseas research and contact tracing showed the virus can be airborne and travel more than 6 feet inside a room), right alongside the early insistence that masks weren’t needed to reduce disease spread. Exactly what was being said in the emails was said publicly on TV.<p>Meanwhile, the emails seemed to show a lack of understanding of just how dangerous Covid-19 would be. We hit 600,000 deaths while the worst case models being discussed in Spring 2020 (on TV and privately) were just between 60k and 200k deaths. The virus did far more damage than people feared at first when lockdowns went into place.
评论 #27670191 未加载
javagram将近 4 年前
&gt; Usually, 40%-50% of patients in severe respiratory distress die on ventilators, but in New York City the death rate for COVID-19 patients on ventilators was 88%.<p>Continued to read through the article and just be aware that a lot of the statistics the author cites are questionable. For instance, the 88% number here leads to an article from April 2020. Even without looking it up, I remember articles from may 2020 debunking this number. A simple Google reveals the real number is probably around 50% and that 88% is an outlier. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;33119402&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;33119402&#x2F;</a><p>Polifact has an article on the 88% number <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politifact.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;2020&#x2F;apr&#x2F;28&#x2F;are-88-covid-19-patients-ventilators-dying-its-not&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politifact.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;2020&#x2F;apr&#x2F;28&#x2F;are-88-covid-...</a> “ The 88% death rate was among patients who either died or recovered. It did not account for the roughly three-quarters of patients involved in the study who were still on a ventilator at the end of the study, leaving in doubt what the eventual mortality rate will be.”<p>Using that number a year later is extremely irresponsible and it’s obvious to me the author is cherry-picking numbers to support their preconceived position.
dang将近 4 年前
I&#x27;ve replaced the article&#x27;s title in accordance with the HN guidelines [1], using a representative phrase [2] from the article itself. If anyone can find a better such phrase, we&#x27;d be happy to change it again.<p>[1] <i>Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html</a>).<p>[2] <i>When changing a title, it&#x27;s best to use representative language from the article itself</i> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?dateRange=all&amp;page=0&amp;prefix=true&amp;query=representative%20article%20by%3Adang&amp;sort=byDate&amp;type=comment" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?dateRange=all&amp;page=0&amp;prefix=true&amp;que...</a>
K0balt将近 4 年前
This article is biased garbage. Half truths mixed with important facts, threads of truth woven into a tapestry of lies.<p>Wuhan lab leak? Probably. Long Covid debunked? Not even. Social distancing cost lives because we didn’t achieve herd immunity? Really? Really?
taylodl将近 4 年前
This article misses one critical point - the near collapse of our healthcare system, not just here in the United States but around the world. The problem being the run on emergency services and ICU resources. Look at what’s happening in India at this very moment. All in all, over 600,000 Americans died in confirmed Covid cases and even accounting for that there were an additional 300,000 deaths in excess of the annual average whose cause was not established. Many assume Covid but no posthumous testing was being performed. We’re going to armchair quarterback this for years to come, but we shouldn’t forget the facts of an overloaded healthcare system.
jkubicek将近 4 年前
&gt; the U.S.’s excess mortality in 2017 was greater than its excess mortality in 2020.<p>Correct me if I&#x27;m missing something, but this comment is completely wrong.<p>The cited paper compares 2017 excess deaths in the US vs. similar aged populations in Europe. The &quot;excess death rates&quot; for 2020, as cited in the linked paper, is estimated COVID-19 death counts for the US (which isn&#x27;t even what &quot;excess deaths&quot; is).
评论 #27670256 未加载
tcmart14将近 4 年前
Is anyone gonna mention this was the first world wide pandemic of this scale since modern medicine really? There were pandemics, but not of such a world wide scale. Sure 1918, but that wasn&#x27;t to much past just throwing leeches on a person to filter out the bad blood or demons.<p>I bring it up because, yea execution was not perfect. I expected this in the beginning. But so many people act like the response should have been perfect. Critique what was wrong with it and learn. However, assuming everyone who made a decision we didn&#x27;t like as evil isn&#x27;t going to help us at all. At some point in the future, there will be another world wide pandemic. It could be tomorrow, it could be 20 years from now, it could be 100 years from now. Unless everyone stays within 10 miles within home, it will happen again. And it may be be worst, like Ebola with flu-like transmission, or it may be not as bad. Whatever the case, lessons learned now will influence decisions later.
评论 #27675810 未加载
评论 #27669603 未加载
hinkley将近 4 年前
Are there things we need to look at? Yes. But if someone doesn’t save your life then you won’t be around to argue about how they could have done it better. It’s also pretty rich to claim the numbers don’t add up and substitute numbers that don’t add up either.<p>Speaking about the war on reality (original title):<p>This article claims an infection fatality rate of 0.15%.<p>Currently we list 604 thousand Americans dead from COVID, that’s 0.18% of the entire population - not the infected population. Brazil is at 0.23%, and rising fast. Worldwide it’s almost 4 million out of 181M reported cases. That’s over 2% IFR.<p>If one were to assume that everyone in these countries was infected and we are just really awful at reporting, that number is still wrong. But the US is currently reporting a hair over 1:10 people as having been infected, and Brazil has not crossed that threshold yet, so 0.15% is already empirically - to use the technical term - horse shit [1].<p>Since the quarantine was about firewalling especially vulnerable populations, I won’t hazard a guess as to how this would have scaled, but we do know that if it <i>had</i> scaled, a great many people would have not had or lost access to medical equipment <i>and labor</i> that was in extremely short supply. The argument about how we didn’t actually run out of beds or labor may or may not be true <i>for the rate of exposure we actually experienced</i> but claiming that would not have been affected by a do-nothing policy is arguing both sides.<p>[1] This article should make you cussing-angry, because this sort of retroactive second-guessing is going to get a lot of people killed the next time around. Most especially old people.
评论 #27668417 未加载
评论 #27668824 未加载
评论 #27668530 未加载
评论 #27668728 未加载
评论 #27669917 未加载
评论 #27668352 未加载
评论 #27668591 未加载
Spivak将近 4 年前
Oh good lord the first two paragraphs. Are you really going to &quot;think of the children&quot; this issue while immediately roasting your rhetorical adversary for making decisions based on what they thought at the time was best for the safety of children?<p>This is sure to be one of many articles that use the benefit of hindsight to paint policymakers and scientists who were being cautious, deferring to the scientific consensus as it was best understood at the time, and operating with very little very messy real life data as deceivers because they didn&#x27;t magically know everything from the beginning.<p>Misc comments:<p>It&#x27;s not okay to just say that only the old, fat, and vulnerable are at risk of dying so why should everyone else have to take all these precautions? The lack of empathy is staggering.<p>&quot;Stay at home orders&quot; didn&#x27;t literally mean stay confined to your house at least around here. You could go outside at literally any time during the past year regardless of orders.<p>Moving the goalposts and &quot;covering up their failures&quot; has another less-pejorative name &quot;updating your recommendations based on research and data.&quot; If you&#x27;re upset that scientists didn&#x27;t tell the public &quot;here&#x27;s our recommendation based on the data we have -- it&#x27;s probably not perfect so you should just not listen to us and go with your gut&quot; I don&#x27;t know what to tell you. Everyone was sanitizing everything at the beginning of the pandemic until it came out that transmission was basically entirely airborn then everyone stopped. Those flip-floppers working for Big Purell.
评论 #27668914 未加载
评论 #27668647 未加载
评论 #27668509 未加载
评论 #27668863 未加载
johbjo将近 4 年前
The total IFR is essentially an exponential function of the age and health distribution in the population. Without specifying the population further, many numbers can be correct.<p>When high IFR:s are presented to the public, most people (both old and young) believe it applies to them, it is misguided in both directions.
ivraatiems将近 4 年前
This is an absurd article written by a person with a barely-hidden agenda. A review of their Twitter makes it clear this is not a matter of &quot;renewed concern&quot;; this is a person who has resisted every measure used to fight COVID from the beginning because that &quot;disrupts normalcy&quot; or gives public health officials even a smidge of temporary control over one&#x27;s life.[1]<p>I have no patience for works like this, written by people for whom any modification to their existence, even the most minor and most voluntary, is one change too many (and a sign of malign conspiracy to destroy them). Masks? Nah, who knows whether they&#x27;re effective. Distance? No, it&#x27;s not a big deal if I just don&#x27;t. Vaccine to avoid the above? No, it&#x27;s &quot;too experimental&quot; and I &quot;just don&#x27;t trust it&quot; no matter whether it&#x27;s based on decade-old or century-old technology.<p>The author makes no concrete suggestions about what we should do differently, and I think it&#x27;s because for them, any change to their behavior whatsoever is one change too many. It&#x27;s all well and good to try to help people as long as it doesn&#x27;t require any personal effort or sacrifice after all, and as long as absolutely no mistakes are made and no missteps ever occur. In the mind of the author, anybody who would dare ask them to do anything at all to help their fellow human is a ghoul who must have an ulterior motive. This says much more about the author than it does the people asking.<p>It&#x27;s tempting to ask sanctimonious questions, like, how many people would have had to die before this person considered that that loss of life might justify temporarily changing their behavior, or (the horror) listening to the government or working with their fellow man just a little? How bad would something have to be before they&#x27;d agree to try, just try, to do something that <i>might</i> help?<p>What a shame that there are so many selfish and conspiratorial people in American society.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;galexybrane?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;galexybrane?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogl...</a>
评论 #27674299 未加载
bartimus将近 4 年前
&gt; but the actual IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%<p>* US total COVID-19 deaths: 600.000<p>* US total population: 328.200.000<p>= 0.18% COVID-19 deaths of total population. The IFR must be even higher.
DoreenMichele将近 4 年前
I wish some things had been handled differently. But I think the better question at this point is &quot;Where do we go from here?&quot;<p>An endless rehash of shoulda, woulda, coulda seems unproductive.
评论 #27670071 未加载
piker将近 4 年前
Content aside, this site is beautiful on mobile. Bravo.
评论 #27668464 未加载
cpr将近 4 年前
Can&#x27;t upvote this enough. Goes against the mainstream narrative, so may not get much traction here on &quot;mainstream narrative&quot; HN.
评论 #27668338 未加载