4 ms·

But talk about lack of data. This is looking at the spread of a different virus - a virus that certainly does not have the infectiousness of the Covid virus. So

But talk about lack of data. This is looking at the spread of a different virus - a virus that certainly does not have the infectiousness of the Covid virus. So the this pure speculation.

Barrin92 7y ago
It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. The question remains however why we ought to treat concerns about data about the virus different than concerns about data about the response to the virus. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? It seems ironic that people critize Ioannidis for a sort of first-order error in thinking by not considering uncertainty. Yet causing damage and applying first-order thinking to disruption of global supply chains that likely will drive entire nations into deep recession and instability is apparently adequate.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. The article is a specious disaster. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? An extreme provokes an extreme response? Of course? Human lives are more important than economies. And economies can't function with massive loss of life anyway. Even more, this is a massive exogenous shock. Once it's done, the various players can pick up the pieces. Until then, it should be treated like a war. Society trumps economics (hopefully, otherwise both are headed for disaster, 1 million deaths+ was the Imperial College Report estimate for what happens if the US does nothing).
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    >Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. They do actually. Several of the outbreaks studied among the papers were influenza pandemics, coronavirus pandemics, and SARS. (page ~110-120) This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Which may, in fact, be literal war in some places. There is a trade-off between the economic effects and response to the virus. It is not a binary question.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      Doesn’t influenzas cause a pandemic every year? I’ve read from various sources influenza cause multiple hundred-thousand deaths every year.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        Yes, influenza causes over 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die-of-influenza-worldwide-than-who-estimated https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die...
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        That's broadly correct, although most definitions of "pandemic" jump through some hoop or another to make seasonal flu not count.
    - joe_the_user 7y ago
      This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Science is a means of discovering the most likely state of things and an always uncertain one. Other human institutions have to come into play when it is necessary to act. Those institutions make the trade-off rather simply calculating them. In the current context, the institution of a war is appropriate (more appropriate than all the semi-wars we've had over the last 50 years in fact, better than "war on drugs" or "war on terror"). We confronted by tiny semi-living creature that happens to be very good at killing us. We should band together and engage in unified, determined action to protect ourselves. As far the economy goes - the economy is a phenomena of society. The productive machinery should kept going as much as practical and the entire process managed by the government, essentially a machinery akin to WWII needs to be in place for the duration of this. Such war measures kept things running at that time and there's little reason to think they wouldn't work today. Now, as far as lots of people losing their investment. Well, sorry, investments aren't life. This, in a sense, very quick trip from 1929 to 1948 for y'all.

But talk about lack of data. This is looking at the spread of a different virus - a virus that certainly does not have the infectiousness of the Covid virus. So the this pure speculation.

Barrin92 7y ago

It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. The question remains however why we ought to treat concerns about data about the virus different than concerns about data about the response to the virus. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? It seems ironic that people critize Ioannidis for a sort of first-order error in thinking by not considering uncertainty. Yet causing damage and applying first-order thinking to disruption of global supply chains that likely will drive entire nations into deep recession and instability is apparently adequate.

joe_the_user 7y ago
It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. The article is a specious disaster. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? An extreme provokes an extreme response? Of course? Human lives are more important than economies. And economies can't function with massive loss of life anyway. Even more, this is a massive exogenous shock. Once it's done, the various players can pick up the pieces. Until then, it should be treated like a war. Society trumps economics (hopefully, otherwise both are headed for disaster, 1 million deaths+ was the Imperial College Report estimate for what happens if the US does nothing).
- Barrin92 7y ago
  >Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. They do actually. Several of the outbreaks studied among the papers were influenza pandemics, coronavirus pandemics, and SARS. (page ~110-120) This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Which may, in fact, be literal war in some places. There is a trade-off between the economic effects and response to the virus. It is not a binary question.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    Doesn’t influenzas cause a pandemic every year? I’ve read from various sources influenza cause multiple hundred-thousand deaths every year.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Yes, influenza causes over 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die-of-influenza-worldwide-than-who-estimated https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die...
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      That's broadly correct, although most definitions of "pandemic" jump through some hoop or another to make seasonal flu not count.
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Science is a means of discovering the most likely state of things and an always uncertain one. Other human institutions have to come into play when it is necessary to act. Those institutions make the trade-off rather simply calculating them. In the current context, the institution of a war is appropriate (more appropriate than all the semi-wars we've had over the last 50 years in fact, better than "war on drugs" or "war on terror"). We confronted by tiny semi-living creature that happens to be very good at killing us. We should band together and engage in unified, determined action to protect ourselves. As far the economy goes - the economy is a phenomena of society. The productive machinery should kept going as much as practical and the entire process managed by the government, essentially a machinery akin to WWII needs to be in place for the duration of this. Such war measures kept things running at that time and there's little reason to think they wouldn't work today. Now, as far as lots of people losing their investment. Well, sorry, investments aren't life. This, in a sense, very quick trip from 1929 to 1948 for y'all.