5 ms·

Wow. And you magically know that how, exactly?

by ulfw 7y ago

hef19898 7y ago
May have changed, but yesterday Berlin wasn't listed in the high risk regions that was shared by Bavarian health authorities. Didn't check today, so. EDIT: According to officials, one county in germany is considered high risk (link in German): https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Risikogebiete.html https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus...
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  It's futile arguing that the risk is low because the officials classified it as such when I stated that I disagree with their risk assessment and management strategy. If I look at a risk matrix I would classify the risk impact of not quarantining as significant to disastrous and the likelihood as very likely. That puts the current situation in all of the world at the highest risk. Risk matrix example: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Fleming3/publication/260010346/figure/fig1/AS:297248975015943@1447881086616/Example-of-how-different-scenarios-fit-within-a-risk-matrix-4.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Fleming3/publicat...
  - hef19898 7y ago
    One last comment because you clearly seem to prefer to live in your own world. Assessing risk the way you do has one big issue (it actually has multiple but let's stick with one). When you put Corona in the disastrous category you habe to provide reasons for doing so, otherwise it is just a gut feeling. And by classifying it as disastrous, you run into issues when classifying stuff like Ebola for example. Over-classifying has that effect on measuring systems, that's why you need teams of experts from multiple disciplines to do it properly. And would have to do so at multiple sub levels for each criteria. The whole purpose is to take gut feeling and emotions out of the process. Doing it alone makes the whole exercise pointless. Now, take that whatever way you want.
    - rglullis 7y ago
      This over-reliance on "experts" is what got things to this state in the first place. Not that long ago, WHO was adamant in saying that flying to China was still okay and that "there was no reason to take extreme measures". How many lives were lost because of that? Conversely, had they recommended more aggressive contention measures, how many trips would have been avoided? How much slower would the virus come to Europe? If sirens were ringing 4 weeks ago by the WHO "experts", perhaps Italy wouldn't need to be in lockdown now. > When you put Corona in the disastrous category you habe to provide reasons for doing so, otherwise it is just a gut feeling. Not really. We put in the disastrous category because we don't have enough information to claim that it is not a mass-extinction event. In the face of a threat of unknown risk and the potential impact is unbounded, we got to treat it as the worst and prepare for the worst, cost-analysis be damned! But if you prefer to ignore me and refer to experts, please listen to Nassim Taleb, who may know a thing or two about risk analysis: https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_via_Novel_Pathogens_-_Coronavirus_A_Note https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_...
      - hef19898 7y ago
        Mass-extinction? That escalated quickly. Maybe uninstall Plague Inc. for a while? And no, that is exactly not how risk assessment is supposed to work.
        rglullis 7y ago
        Do you have kids? Older parents? Would you tell them that is totally fine to keep doing what they are doing just because the experts haven't assessed the risk yet? It doesn't have to be a literal mass-extinction event for this type of thing to lead to some catastrophic events affecting people you know and care about. If it were to happen (I honestly hope it doesn't) to someone you care about, I am sure that "the experts told me things were fine" will be of little consolation. How about dropping the sarcasm and word-thinking and start to put some thought into the questions I made regarding the WHO recommendations up until some weeks ago? I bet if you could go back in time to Italy just three weeks ago, you wouldn't be telling people to just "listen to the experts", would you?

Wow. And you magically know that how, exactly?

by ulfw 7y ago

Wow. And you magically know that how, exactly?

hef19898 7y ago

May have changed, but yesterday Berlin wasn't listed in the high risk regions that was shared by Bavarian health authorities. Didn't check today, so. EDIT: According to officials, one county in germany is considered high risk (link in German): https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Risikogebiete.html https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus...

rorykoehler 7y ago
It's futile arguing that the risk is low because the officials classified it as such when I stated that I disagree with their risk assessment and management strategy. If I look at a risk matrix I would classify the risk impact of not quarantining as significant to disastrous and the likelihood as very likely. That puts the current situation in all of the world at the highest risk. Risk matrix example: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Fleming3/publication/260010346/figure/fig1/AS:297248975015943@1447881086616/Example-of-how-different-scenarios-fit-within-a-risk-matrix-4.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Fleming3/publicat...
- hef19898 7y ago
  One last comment because you clearly seem to prefer to live in your own world. Assessing risk the way you do has one big issue (it actually has multiple but let's stick with one). When you put Corona in the disastrous category you habe to provide reasons for doing so, otherwise it is just a gut feeling. And by classifying it as disastrous, you run into issues when classifying stuff like Ebola for example. Over-classifying has that effect on measuring systems, that's why you need teams of experts from multiple disciplines to do it properly. And would have to do so at multiple sub levels for each criteria. The whole purpose is to take gut feeling and emotions out of the process. Doing it alone makes the whole exercise pointless. Now, take that whatever way you want.
  - rglullis 7y ago
    This over-reliance on "experts" is what got things to this state in the first place. Not that long ago, WHO was adamant in saying that flying to China was still okay and that "there was no reason to take extreme measures". How many lives were lost because of that? Conversely, had they recommended more aggressive contention measures, how many trips would have been avoided? How much slower would the virus come to Europe? If sirens were ringing 4 weeks ago by the WHO "experts", perhaps Italy wouldn't need to be in lockdown now. > When you put Corona in the disastrous category you habe to provide reasons for doing so, otherwise it is just a gut feeling. Not really. We put in the disastrous category because we don't have enough information to claim that it is not a mass-extinction event. In the face of a threat of unknown risk and the potential impact is unbounded, we got to treat it as the worst and prepare for the worst, cost-analysis be damned! But if you prefer to ignore me and refer to experts, please listen to Nassim Taleb, who may know a thing or two about risk analysis: https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_via_Novel_Pathogens_-_Coronavirus_A_Note https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_...
    - hef19898 7y ago
      Mass-extinction? That escalated quickly. Maybe uninstall Plague Inc. for a while? And no, that is exactly not how risk assessment is supposed to work.
      - rglullis 7y ago
        Do you have kids? Older parents? Would you tell them that is totally fine to keep doing what they are doing just because the experts haven't assessed the risk yet? It doesn't have to be a literal mass-extinction event for this type of thing to lead to some catastrophic events affecting people you know and care about. If it were to happen (I honestly hope it doesn't) to someone you care about, I am sure that "the experts told me things were fine" will be of little consolation. How about dropping the sarcasm and word-thinking and start to put some thought into the questions I made regarding the WHO recommendations up until some weeks ago? I bet if you could go back in time to Italy just three weeks ago, you wouldn't be telling people to just "listen to the experts", would you?