5 ms·

Did you watch the video or are you just basing this on out of context quotes? What you're quoting was a brief anecdote about what those doctors were seeing on t

Did you watch the video or are you just basing this on out of context quotes? What you're quoting was a brief anecdote about what those doctors were seeing on the ground. Their extrapolations are based on state-level aggregates in New York and California. Sample sizes of 300-650K patients.

brlewis 6y ago
I did not get the chance to see the video before it was taken down, but I got the content of their arguments here: http://www.tathasta.com/2020/04/watch-er-doctors-urge-reopening.html http://www.tathasta.com/2020/04/watch-er-doctors-urge-reopen... They use the same logic for Kern County, California, and New York. Their logic is, that if you test N people and find M positive cases, that in the population at large you'll have an infection rate of M/N. This would be true if the N tests were performed on random members of the population. But because the tests are only performed when there's reason to suspect infection, M/N is a higher infection rate than in the population at large. Their inflated number for total infected persons makes the death rate appear smaller.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  FYI the full video is available at the website of the news station that uploaded it to YouTube (where it was removed): https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-with-dr-dan-erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi-taken-down-from-youtube https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-wi...
  - brlewis 6y ago
    Thanks. 51 minutes is too long for me to watch. Anybody who knows of anything in there that addresses the sampling bias issue, please point me to how far in it is.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  > I did not get the chance to see the video before it was taken down I suppose that’s the real problem, in so many words...
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    I did watch the video and the critique by brlewis is perfectly accurate.
    - xeromal 6y ago
      But why should we believe you? Why can't we watch and make our own judgements?
      - shkkmo 6y ago
        > But why should we believe you? Because you have a basic understanding of statistics. > Why can't we watch and make our own judgements? You can. The video is available in many places.
      - runawaybottle 6y ago
        Because, I’m Youtube, why would I ever lie to you. I have your best interest in mind, and trust me, this shits gonna get us all killed if we watch this.
shkkmo 6y ago
I did watch the video and I can safely say that these doctors make massive and very convenient statistic mistakes throughout. Sample size doesn't help if the sampling method is biased. Even if tests were available to everyone regardless of symptoms, you would still have a selection bias that would skew the numbers. The only way to accurately estimate overall infection rates in the general population is to test a random sampling. Then there is the "comparison" of Sweden (no lock down) and Norway/California. They mention the death counts and population of these countries in another attempt to show that the "number of cases is high and the number of deaths is small regardless of lockdown" but completely gloss over the fact that Sweden has more that 5x the covid deaths per capita that Norway and California have. Regardless of if this video should be censored, these guys are awful scientists.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Regardless of if this video should be censored, these guys are awful scientists. This is the exact reason why it shouldn't be censored. Because if their science is bad then it needs to be available for people who know better to tear it to shreds. If you take it down then the story can't be "this is why they're wrong" because what they said isn't available anymore, so a rebuttal isn't believable because you can't tell if it's an accurate representation of the original presentation. So then the story becomes about censorship and you're making it all too easy for motivated people to spin a conspiracy theory about how these scientists are speaking truth to power and getting oppressed, even if they are in actual fact totally wrong.
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    Yet if you look at the comment sections for this video, there isn't anyone tearing it to shreds. This isn't something I have been able to confidently form an opinion on; it's a hard topic. I think we will be strugging with how to balance bias, deliberate misinformation and freedom of speech for a long time. But I think at the very least, YouTube needed to put up prominent disclaimers and links to limit the harm that this content can cause.
    - 6y ago
vannevar 6y ago
I did watch the video. At about the 5-minute mark, they make a huge error in extrapolating the percent positive of tests to the general population (in California, 12% positive test rate). As many others have pointed out, that is an inexcusable error that leads them to an wildly erroneous conclusion about the mortality rate of COVID-19. Recent antibody tests in Santa Clara County and Los Angeles showed a rate around 2-4%, and those studies were criticized because those percentages are close to the levels of false positives one could expect in the antibody tests. So at best, the conclusions in the video are off by a factor of three, and most likely, more.
- kolanos 6y ago
  I'm not saying these doctors are correct in their statistical extrapolations. What I am saying is the Kern County anecdote being spread around to discredit them by people who haven't even seen the video are practicing in the disinformation that they accuse these doctors of perpetrating.
  - brlewis 6y ago
    As I fully explained in a nearby comment, the logic in their Kern County anecdote is representative of their logic for California and New York statistics as well. I am not misrepresenting anything or practicing any form of disinformation.
    - fao_ 6y ago
      >I am not misrepresenting anything or practicing any form of disinformation. I'm not saying that you are misrepresenting or disinforming people. But, how would you know unless someone told you?
      - brlewis 6y ago
        Answered in nearby comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014548
  - 6y ago
soamv 6y ago
I did watch it. Their extrapolations were wrong. You can't just multiply positivity rate found in a biased sample by the whole population. That's not a meaningful extrapolation. Then using that extrapolation to say the death rate is low is just building up the error even more. And then, comparing that to the flu and saying this isn't much worse, we're now well into the "this video is a potentially a public health hazard" territory.
- stOneskull 6y ago
  No, you just debate it. A follow up video where there's a debate. Simple.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    That puts you in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop territory, where watching hours of video and an epidemiology and stats degree is needed to tease out the truth.
- thu2111 6y ago
  And then, comparing that to the flu and saying this isn't much worse, we're now well into the "this video is a potentially a public health hazard" territory. No, lockdowns are the public health hazard. The data is quite clear at this point that what's going on here is no worse than the flu. Here's a simple graphic from the UK to make that point clear: http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/ http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/ And if you look at when lockdowns could have possibly started working given incubation and death lags, you'll see that most countries seem to have peaked before the lockdowns could have started working. Implication: they weren't responsible for the peak and decline. But the more important point is that it's critical such things can be debated. Simply assuming you're right and anyone who disagrees is a "public health hazard" is totalitarianism. You won't have any ability to defend yourself, or even any right to, next time someone erases you because e.g. Trump declared your views to be dangerous.
  - orwin 6y ago

brlewis 6y ago

I did not get the chance to see the video before it was taken down, but I got the content of their arguments here: http://www.tathasta.com/2020/04/watch-er-doctors-urge-reopening.html http://www.tathasta.com/2020/04/watch-er-doctors-urge-reopen... They use the same logic for Kern County, California, and New York. Their logic is, that if you test N people and find M positive cases, that in the population at large you'll have an infection rate of M/N. This would be true if the N tests were performed on random members of the population. But because the tests are only performed when there's reason to suspect infection, M/N is a higher infection rate than in the population at large. Their inflated number for total infected persons makes the death rate appear smaller.

TechBro8615 6y ago
FYI the full video is available at the website of the news station that uploaded it to YouTube (where it was removed): https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-with-dr-dan-erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi-taken-down-from-youtube https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-wi...
- brlewis 6y ago
  Thanks. 51 minutes is too long for me to watch. Anybody who knows of anything in there that addresses the sampling bias issue, please point me to how far in it is.
runawaybottle 6y ago
> I did not get the chance to see the video before it was taken down I suppose that’s the real problem, in so many words...
- shkkmo 6y ago
  I did watch the video and the critique by brlewis is perfectly accurate.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    But why should we believe you? Why can't we watch and make our own judgements?
    - shkkmo 6y ago
      > But why should we believe you? Because you have a basic understanding of statistics. > Why can't we watch and make our own judgements? You can. The video is available in many places.
    - runawaybottle 6y ago
      Because, I’m Youtube, why would I ever lie to you. I have your best interest in mind, and trust me, this shits gonna get us all killed if we watch this.

shkkmo 6y ago

I did watch the video and I can safely say that these doctors make massive and very convenient statistic mistakes throughout. Sample size doesn't help if the sampling method is biased. Even if tests were available to everyone regardless of symptoms, you would still have a selection bias that would skew the numbers. The only way to accurately estimate overall infection rates in the general population is to test a random sampling. Then there is the "comparison" of Sweden (no lock down) and Norway/California. They mention the death counts and population of these countries in another attempt to show that the "number of cases is high and the number of deaths is small regardless of lockdown" but completely gloss over the fact that Sweden has more that 5x the covid deaths per capita that Norway and California have. Regardless of if this video should be censored, these guys are awful scientists.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Regardless of if this video should be censored, these guys are awful scientists. This is the exact reason why it shouldn't be censored. Because if their science is bad then it needs to be available for people who know better to tear it to shreds. If you take it down then the story can't be "this is why they're wrong" because what they said isn't available anymore, so a rebuttal isn't believable because you can't tell if it's an accurate representation of the original presentation. So then the story becomes about censorship and you're making it all too easy for motivated people to spin a conspiracy theory about how these scientists are speaking truth to power and getting oppressed, even if they are in actual fact totally wrong.
- shkkmo 6y ago
  Yet if you look at the comment sections for this video, there isn't anyone tearing it to shreds. This isn't something I have been able to confidently form an opinion on; it's a hard topic. I think we will be strugging with how to balance bias, deliberate misinformation and freedom of speech for a long time. But I think at the very least, YouTube needed to put up prominent disclaimers and links to limit the harm that this content can cause.
  - 6y ago

vannevar 6y ago

I did watch the video. At about the 5-minute mark, they make a huge error in extrapolating the percent positive of tests to the general population (in California, 12% positive test rate). As many others have pointed out, that is an inexcusable error that leads them to an wildly erroneous conclusion about the mortality rate of COVID-19. Recent antibody tests in Santa Clara County and Los Angeles showed a rate around 2-4%, and those studies were criticized because those percentages are close to the levels of false positives one could expect in the antibody tests. So at best, the conclusions in the video are off by a factor of three, and most likely, more.

kolanos 6y ago
I'm not saying these doctors are correct in their statistical extrapolations. What I am saying is the Kern County anecdote being spread around to discredit them by people who haven't even seen the video are practicing in the disinformation that they accuse these doctors of perpetrating.
- brlewis 6y ago
  As I fully explained in a nearby comment, the logic in their Kern County anecdote is representative of their logic for California and New York statistics as well. I am not misrepresenting anything or practicing any form of disinformation.
  - fao_ 6y ago
    >I am not misrepresenting anything or practicing any form of disinformation. I'm not saying that you are misrepresenting or disinforming people. But, how would you know unless someone told you?
    - brlewis 6y ago
      Answered in nearby comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014548
- 6y ago

soamv 6y ago

I did watch it. Their extrapolations were wrong. You can't just multiply positivity rate found in a biased sample by the whole population. That's not a meaningful extrapolation. Then using that extrapolation to say the death rate is low is just building up the error even more. And then, comparing that to the flu and saying this isn't much worse, we're now well into the "this video is a potentially a public health hazard" territory.

stOneskull 6y ago
No, you just debate it. A follow up video where there's a debate. Simple.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That puts you in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop territory, where watching hours of video and an epidemiology and stats degree is needed to tease out the truth.
thu2111 6y ago
And then, comparing that to the flu and saying this isn't much worse, we're now well into the "this video is a potentially a public health hazard" territory. No, lockdowns are the public health hazard. The data is quite clear at this point that what's going on here is no worse than the flu. Here's a simple graphic from the UK to make that point clear: http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/ http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/ And if you look at when lockdowns could have possibly started working given incubation and death lags, you'll see that most countries seem to have peaked before the lockdowns could have started working. Implication: they weren't responsible for the peak and decline. But the more important point is that it's critical such things can be debated. Simply assuming you're right and anyone who disagrees is a "public health hazard" is totalitarianism. You won't have any ability to defend yourself, or even any right to, next time someone erases you because e.g. Trump declared your views to be dangerous.
- orwin 6y ago