4 ms·

Great write up. It’s so strange the WHO would release a statement like that.

ryankemper 7y ago
Very strange. If you haven't seen it, they did say why they did it here: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p... Specifically this part: > People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. So, first of all, I think the concern is on its face totally unwarranted because people likely do have immunity to reinfection for several months, but regardless the presence of the immunological memory (provided they avoid getting infected with Measles which causes immunological amnesia) means that the second infection will be really not very bad and unlikely to transmit easily. But more importantly: Our public health organizations (and the media) have adopted the following belief: It is worth it to either mislead the public or to outright lie in order to achieve compliance. If it's not clear from the article, I find such a position detestable, not only on ideological grounds but also because functionally it causes people to endanger their health by engaging in superstition. This is my theory on why we've seen so many articles from previously-respectable organizations like CNN that seem to focus on the narrative that young people are dropping like flies from this. Why? Because they believe that if young people are not scared shitless for their personal health, that they will not comply with the lockdown measures. So, the WHO is really not trying to hide their motivation here. Now the irony is I oppose immunity passports on ideological grounds, at least when used _within_ a society. As far as being used as a literal passport, that's fine by me. If the rest of the world wants to practice containment, it's welcome to do so, but I think from an evidence-based perspective, containment seems like an incredibly dangerous proposition.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  Yeah that makes total sense. I can’t believe how few people buy the media’s stuff so easily. I have relatives forwarding me the corana causes strokes in young people articles. Normally intelligent people. This whole thing has really shaken my understanding of people.
- lbeltrame 7y ago
  > Our public health organizations (and the media) have adopted the following belief: It is worth it to either mislead the public or to outright lie in order to achieve compliance. If it's not clear from the article, I find such a position detestable, not only on ideological grounds but also because functionally it causes people to endanger their health by engaging in superstition. In Italy it's pretty evident from the communication from the government, the experts (which released a "disaster story" of possible 150,000 ICU cases in a month, a number so high that should have been at least explained) and the media (including tabloids). Since Germany has started reopening, media here (but, according to what I read - but please correct me if need be - not the case with the major German papers) started saying that "infections are accelerating elsewhere! See? Our model of lockdown is the only one that works!" It might be true, but it should be grounded in facts and not in misrepresentation of them. P.S.: Since you mentioned a critique of the widely-used model for this epidemic, do you have any more links to dig further? I simply do not know enough and I want to inform myself more.
  - ryankemper 7y ago
    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QuzAwSTND6N4k7yNj/seemingly-popular-covid-19-model-is-obvious-nonsense https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QuzAwSTND6N4k7yNj/seemingly-... is the critique (it's in the article but easy to miss) The most important point of criticism is this section: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QuzAwSTND6N4k7yNj/seemingly-popular-covid-19-model-is-obvious-nonsense#A_Simpler_Version_of_the_Same_Model https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QuzAwSTND6N4k7yNj/seemingly-...
    - lbeltrame 7y ago
      I've read it, but (perhaps I'm wrong, I'm a biologist turned to computational biology so not expert on epidemiological models ;) didn't the author (and similar Stats News post) argue that it is too optimistic, IOW the opposite that you were arguing in the post? I don't mean this is as a criticism, but it struck me as some dissonance as I was reading. I've also heard that there might be criticism to other models like the Imperial College one, but so far I've never found anything with some substance.
tinus_hn 7y ago
It’s not that strange, that’s what happens when you forget if you are a scientist or a politician. If you try to be both at the same time the result is you’ll misrepresent your scientific data to make it fit your political goals. In this case they keep mentioning uncertainty and the argument is that otherwise the public may behave in a way they don’t want. Whatever your opinion on the arguments, that’s not science and it is also poor politics because sooner or later they’ll lose credibility and really that’s all they have.

Very strange. If you haven't seen it, they did say why they did it here: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p... Specifically this part: > People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. So, first of all, I think the concern is on its face totally unwarranted because people likely do have immunity to reinfection for several months, but regardless the presence of the immunological memory (provided they avoid getting infected with Measles which causes immunological amnesia) means that the second infection will be really not very bad and unlikely to transmit easily. But more importantly: Our public health organizations (and the media) have adopted the following belief: It is worth it to either mislead the public or to outright lie in order to achieve compliance. If it's not clear from the article, I find such a position detestable, not only on ideological grounds but also because functionally it causes people to endanger their health by engaging in superstition. This is my theory on why we've seen so many articles from previously-respectable organizations like CNN that seem to focus on the narrative that young people are dropping like flies from this. Why? Because they believe that if young people are not scared shitless for their personal health, that they will not comply with the lockdown measures. So, the WHO is really not trying to hide their motivation here. Now the irony is I oppose immunity passports on ideological grounds, at least when used _within_ a society. As far as being used as a literal passport, that's fine by me. If the rest of the world wants to practice containment, it's welcome to do so, but I think from an evidence-based perspective, containment seems like an incredibly dangerous proposition.

mrfusion 7y ago
Yeah that makes total sense. I can’t believe how few people buy the media’s stuff so easily. I have relatives forwarding me the corana causes strokes in young people articles. Normally intelligent people. This whole thing has really shaken my understanding of people.
lbeltrame 7y ago
> Our public health organizations (and the media) have adopted the following belief: It is worth it to either mislead the public or to outright lie in order to achieve compliance. If it's not clear from the article, I find such a position detestable, not only on ideological grounds but also because functionally it causes people to endanger their health by engaging in superstition. In Italy it's pretty evident from the communication from the government, the experts (which released a "disaster story" of possible 150,000 ICU cases in a month, a number so high that should have been at least explained) and the media (including tabloids). Since Germany has started reopening, media here (but, according to what I read - but please correct me if need be - not the case with the major German papers) started saying that "infections are accelerating elsewhere! See? Our model of lockdown is the only one that works!" It might be true, but it should be grounded in facts and not in misrepresentation of them. P.S.: Since you mentioned a critique of the widely-used model for this epidemic, do you have any more links to dig further? I simply do not know enough and I want to inform myself more.
- ryankemper 7y ago
  https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QuzAwSTND6N4k7yNj/seemingly-popular-covid-19-model-is-obvious-nonsense https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QuzAwSTND6N4k7yNj/seemingly-... is the critique (it's in the article but easy to miss) The most important point of criticism is this section: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QuzAwSTND6N4k7yNj/seemingly-popular-covid-19-model-is-obvious-nonsense#A_Simpler_Version_of_the_Same_Model https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QuzAwSTND6N4k7yNj/seemingly-...
  - lbeltrame 7y ago
    I've read it, but (perhaps I'm wrong, I'm a biologist turned to computational biology so not expert on epidemiological models ;) didn't the author (and similar Stats News post) argue that it is too optimistic, IOW the opposite that you were arguing in the post? I don't mean this is as a criticism, but it struck me as some dissonance as I was reading. I've also heard that there might be criticism to other models like the Imperial College one, but so far I've never found anything with some substance.

tinus_hn 7y ago

It’s not that strange, that’s what happens when you forget if you are a scientist or a politician. If you try to be both at the same time the result is you’ll misrepresent your scientific data to make it fit your political goals. In this case they keep mentioning uncertainty and the argument is that otherwise the public may behave in a way they don’t want. Whatever your opinion on the arguments, that’s not science and it is also poor politics because sooner or later they’ll lose credibility and really that’s all they have.