5 ms·

You're exaggerating, which is just as bad. NYT reported that "200,000 to 1.7 million" people could die on March 13th [1]. Most of those calculations had to do

You're exaggerating, which is just as bad. NYT reported that "200,000 to 1.7 million" people could die on March 13th [1]. Most of those calculations had to do with the fact that the hospital system would get overwhelmed at some point, compounding the deaths. None of that is "scare statistics". It's useful modeling. I think what you consider to be "scare statistics" is more lack of education. Similar to how people saw the Trump win as meaning "The media/polls were wrong! They had Clinton winning at 85%! They can't be trusted!". When in reality, flipping a coin and getting 3 heads in a row is all it takes for Trump to win. Or rolling a standard 6-sided die and correctly guessing the number once. It suddenly doesn't sound outlandish. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-estimate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-est... Edit: The downvotes are concerning. If you have a problem with my argument, please respond.

jnbiche 7y ago
Exactly. Both the media and the anti-media/anti-expert crowd both have a poor understanding of probability and confidence intervals. With the media, I think it's sometimes intentional and not ignorance, as a ploy to get clicks. With the anti-media, anti-expert crowd, I have to believe it's usually simple ignorance.
- thelean12 7y ago
  Mostly agree. Some media is certainly better than others. The NYT article I linked has a very responsible title (IMO) of "Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths". It clearly says that the estimates they're about to talk about are worst-case and estimates.
  - jnbiche 7y ago
    True, I should have qualified that with "most" or "much" media. I agree there are still some responsible outlets out there.
alacombe 7y ago
Do you realize that if the media write "could die", readers will interpret it as "will die" ?
- thelean12 7y ago
  If you actually read the NYT article, it's really hard to come out of it thinking "1.7 million people will die". This is because of a few reasons: 1. They have a good, responsible title. 2. They bury the 1.7 million number a bit so you're forced to at least understand some of it. 3. They talk about how and why the estimates will change over time: >“When people change their behavior," said Lauren Gardner, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering who models epidemics, “those model parameters are no longer applicable,” so short-term forecasts are likely to be more accurate. “There is a lot of room for improvement if we act appropriately.” I see no reason why this article shouldn't have been posted in its current form. Of course, as you get further away from good sources of news, you're going to get less responsible reporting. NYT is an example of very high quality reporting. CNN at the time probably had a breaking news line item on TV of "1.7 million could die". This would be irresponsible. Fox News at the time probably had a breaking news line item on TV of "It's just the flu". This would be irresponsible. And that's certainly a problem.

jnbiche 7y ago

Exactly. Both the media and the anti-media/anti-expert crowd both have a poor understanding of probability and confidence intervals. With the media, I think it's sometimes intentional and not ignorance, as a ploy to get clicks. With the anti-media, anti-expert crowd, I have to believe it's usually simple ignorance.

thelean12 7y ago
Mostly agree. Some media is certainly better than others. The NYT article I linked has a very responsible title (IMO) of "Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths". It clearly says that the estimates they're about to talk about are worst-case and estimates.
- jnbiche 7y ago
  True, I should have qualified that with "most" or "much" media. I agree there are still some responsible outlets out there.

alacombe 7y ago

Do you realize that if the media write "could die", readers will interpret it as "will die" ?

thelean12 7y ago
If you actually read the NYT article, it's really hard to come out of it thinking "1.7 million people will die". This is because of a few reasons: 1. They have a good, responsible title. 2. They bury the 1.7 million number a bit so you're forced to at least understand some of it. 3. They talk about how and why the estimates will change over time: >“When people change their behavior," said Lauren Gardner, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering who models epidemics, “those model parameters are no longer applicable,” so short-term forecasts are likely to be more accurate. “There is a lot of room for improvement if we act appropriately.” I see no reason why this article shouldn't have been posted in its current form. Of course, as you get further away from good sources of news, you're going to get less responsible reporting. NYT is an example of very high quality reporting. CNN at the time probably had a breaking news line item on TV of "1.7 million could die". This would be irresponsible. Fox News at the time probably had a breaking news line item on TV of "It's just the flu". This would be irresponsible. And that's certainly a problem.