6 ms·

Nobel prize-winning scientist: the Covid-19 epidemic was never exponential

25 points by miked85 7y ago

brenden2 7y ago
I've had the same opinion since the start of this thing (you can go through my post history if you want), and I've been astounded at how incredibly unpopular it is. If you try and point out what's happening with the data, people on Reddit and elsewhere will attack you. It's weird how the same people who are touting the lockdown are also saying we need to "listen to scientists" etc, but they aren't doing that: those people simply ignore or deny the facts and data which don't agree with their doomsday hypothesis. This whole situation is so emotionally charged that it overrides the good sense of good people. EDIT: If anyone is a fan of Warren Buffett, you should take some time from your day to watch the Berkshire meeting from yesterday. I really appreciate how he puts everything in context with none of the politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE
- s9w 7y ago
  My take: China panicked and so did the west. As it became clear this is nothing unusual, leaders can't admit such a cataclysmic mistake and double down. Now many common places for discussion (Twitter and the coronavirus Reddit for example) are clearly under some form of control and shamelessly pro-panic. Others go with the flow (HN) which is the same in this case. And as usual only the uncensored places allow for dissenting opinions.
  - brenden2 7y ago
    Maybe so, but I don't think it's China's fault, or the US governments fault for that matter. I guess it doesn't help that the current administration doesn't instill a sense of security, but I think the state of things is mostly caused by the media whipping people into a frenzy. The virus does what it does, regardless of what the talking heads of state say. For example, Google was touting how great their YouTube stats were for news content because people were so hungry for news about coronavirus. So the news gave people what they want: doomsday all day every day. This corona thing has been very profitable for media. While I haven't checked today, I'm sure if you go to the front page of any mainstream news site all you see is negativity (CNN, NYT, Fox, etc) and articles about how everything is falling apart. So, I think if we're to blame anyone, we should first blame ourselves and second blame the news and their clickbaity-ness.
    - s9w 7y ago
      I'm fine with blaming the news first, then the leaders. There is so much context missing from the reports. When did we ever have counters for other infectious diseases? Naturally people follow the panic - I did so too at first. I did learn a lot about law during this though. In particular how little it all matters, even the core parts of national constitutions. All overruled, changed and whatever in days time. Those laws mean nothing.
      - brenden2 7y ago
        That's true. The government does what it wants at the end of the day. If they don't like the laws they can just change them.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > As it became clear this is nothing unusual, Sure, because hiring festival companies to run temporary morgues is what we do every year. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/29/concerns-over-training-emergency-morgues-run-uk-festival-firm-london https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/29/concerns-ove... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-crisis-puts-pressure-on-crematoria-and-morgues-in-uk https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-cr... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-lockdown-temporary-workers-ppe-morgue-conditions-london-a9491176.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-...
    - brenden2 7y ago
      This is a common rebuttal. Nobody is suggesting the virus is a hoax, or that it's not killing anyone, or that it isn't bad. What people are saying is that 1) these lockdown measures aren't effective and 2) the side effects caused by keeping everyone under house arrest do more harm than the virus. Yes, it's true that the virus spreads very quickly, but it's actually not very lethal. So sure it happens all at once, but it's nowhere close to as bad as the early models predicted. Hospitals aren't anywhere near capacity, in fact in most places they're having to lay off medical workers and close down sections of hospitals because they can't afford to keep their doors open. If you want to keep spreading nonsense, then please do because I respect your right to do so, but I implore you (and others) to take a good hard look at the facts and try to understand what's really going on.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        > but it's actually not very lethal It's pretty lethal to people over 60. > but it's nowhere close to as bad as the early models predicted. But you think the lockdowns don't work? > Hospitals aren't anywhere near capacity, Not true. > in fact in most places they're having to lay off medical workers and close down sections of hospitals because they can't afford to keep their doors open. Not true.
        brenden2 7y ago
        I hate to break it to you, but the older you get the more likely you are to die from any cause. Take a look at the data yourself: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm
- TopHand 7y ago
  "Give me liberty or give me death". Except if the death is by COVID-19, then I will allow you to rob me of all freedom and dignity and further, to steal a prosperous future from my children.
  - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
    It's funnier (when not scary) how my friends who claim to be staunch anarchists and antifa fans now suddenly berate all critique of conforming to indefinite house confinement mandated by the state.
    - mattsofatso 6y ago
      Reminds me of that old saying... "there are no anarchists in the fox hole"... oh wait, that was atheists, but yeah.
- bobosha 7y ago
  In situations like these, the overwhelming instinct is: "better safe than sorry". Some of the measures might have been overkill, but better err on the side of caution. I feel we don't yet have a full perspective to draw any conclusions, while in the middle of it. There will be plenty of analyses, counter-analyses, and multiple books & dissertations written about this period. We'll have to wait and see how history judges Drs. Fauci, Birx, Jha, et al vs. Drs. Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, et al. It will be fascinating to read about it.
  - brenden2 7y ago
    Yeah, I understand that. Fear is, without a doubt, the most powerful emotion. And I'll admit, there were times I was fearful. I live in NYC and during the peak the streets were eerily quiet and I was afraid people would start rioting. Thankfully now things are much calmer and people seem to be going back to normal, slowly.
- hyko 7y ago
  Why are you surprised? It’s the mainstream view, and people are looking for unity because the countermeasures that are being attempted rely on it to varying degrees. No authority I’m aware of ever suggested this was a “doomsday” virus by the way, merely that it had the potential to overrun the healthcare systems of even highly developed nations, kills millions, trash the economy etc. I would say that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you’ve got to recognise when you’re filing a minority report as well. Mainstream epidemiologists, virologists etc. are not just a bunch of schmucks who are having a go at analysis because they’ve got time on their hands: this is their life’s work. That’s not an argument from authority–we should still scrutinise their findings–but nor is it an automatic condemnation of it. This especially applies when distinguished scientists are commenting outside their own field of expertise (how many people wasted money on megadoses of vitamin C because it was endorsed by Linus Pauling?). Contrarian wisdom is always appealing, but it is not always right.
  - brenden2 7y ago
    Believe me, I've been aware for my whole life that I'm a "contrarian" but not in the way that gets upvotes and likes on the internet. I guess that's why I have no friends and nobody wants to be associated with me. I used to think HN was a place where you could talk about the reality of the world, not the sensationalized or BS version. Maybe it once was, but it really isn't anymore. Nowadays YC uses HN as a way to shill their companies, and the average IQ of commenters seems to have reverted to the mean. At least there's lobste.rs, which is a much better community now.
    - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
      Agreed on lobste.rs! (yet here we are)
    - hyko 7y ago
      Oh man. I feel strongly that you should be able to disagree with people and still be friends with them, so it sucks that you feel your views are isolating you. I guess I never thought of HN as a social network. You’ve got way higher karma than me, so many HNers are agreeing with what you have to say in general. Do you think you can’t talk about the real world anymore on HN? That’s not been my experience recently; I’ve made plenty of unpopular comments but people always seem willing to engage in debate. Never heard of lobste.rs, thanks for the link, I will check it out!
randall 7y ago
I've heard this from the same places I usually hear conspiracy theories which is to say: I don't think this is untrue but it definitely isn't validated or verified. Heretics wouldn't be allowed in epidemiological circles, which is why epidemiologists wouldn't be quick to spout this off, but the question still begs: what would a time bound have to do with a virus? And is there a proper comparative a/b case (perhaps in a similar country) to look at? And are there other viruses that behave this way? Even shorter: Why would this virus be different than any virus before it? If it were created in a lab, which some intelligence agencies (and other conspiracy theorists) believe, could that account for it? Then why? I'm unconvinced largely by the conspiracy theory, but I also don't necessarily think it's been convincingly proven false.
hyko 7y ago
Headline: “Nobel prize-winning scientist: the Covid-19 epidemic was never exponential” TFA: “After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths)...”
- miked85 7y ago
  you might as well quote the entire sentence: "After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”."
  - hyko 7y ago
    Not necessary, as my point was the headline is grossly misleading; the Nobel prize-winning scientist explicitly refutes the claim in the first part of that sentence.
- amalter 7y ago
  He doesn’t present an alternative hypothesis though for why (Or maybe it’s implied that this is somehow the natural order of things?) I’m guessing he’s looking at modern proto-pandemics, because you only have to go back to 1918 to see exponential part of the s curve last longer than two weeks. Wouldn’t the null hypothesis than be in these modern times, where we understand germ theory, people start naturally practicing social distancing due to fear? Otherwise what action is slowing virus contagion?
aivisol 7y ago
> but I think we’ve really screwed up. We’ve caused pollution, we’ve allowed the world’s population to increase threefold in my lifetime, we’ve caused the problems of global warming and now we’ve left your generation with a real mess in order to save a relatively small number of very old people. I agree with him on this. Just wanted to add that it is mostly at the expense of children - they are least to blame for all this mess but suffer most. No friends, no proper school, heck, not even going out with their bicycles or skateboards for months. I don't think they deserved this and I don't know how we will ever pay them back.
- jjgreen 7y ago
  Daddy, tell us again about the restaurants
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  No one "deserved" this pandemic. The universe isn't some sort of cosmic judge. The laws of nature simply tick forward blindly and ceaselessly, and we make do as best we can :) P.S. I'm a compatibilist, so I see no contradictions in this.
aaron695 7y ago
He says a lot of stuff that's all hipster, and also probably true. BUT this article is about this - "After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”. This bit implies some sort of God, or the virus has sentience reason for "some kind of break kicks in" So unless you want to explain this within the realms of reason, this article contributes nothing, because this is what it's about.
sonofgod 7y ago
Transcript of video via autogenerated subtitles: https://pastebin.com/P4z71D8W https://pastebin.com/P4z71D8W
- sonofgod 7y ago
  > if you have twice as long infectious and half the R 0 you'll get exactly the same growth rate (7m15) uh... no. (I am not an epidemiologist, but neither is he, so...) R is an estimate of the total infections one person will cause. So if you're infected for twice as long, and R remains the same, then the growth rate will be halved. If you also halve R, the growth rate will also be halved. I don't believe he understands what he's talking about.
hprotagonist 7y ago
Damn near everything in the biological world winds up looking sigmoidal. The question is always “over what timescale”
jsnell 7y ago
There are an amazing number of inaccuracies packed in to this article. The prediction this professor made about the number of deaths was not at start of February, like claimed in the article. It was three weeks later, when China was way past the peak. The claim that the PFR has converged to the same number everywhere seems totally unfounded, though it's hard to say for sure given how vague he is about which regions he is comparing. But e.g. London and NYC are very similar in size, NYC has more deaths by a large factor. He claims that the virus will peter out after inflicting one month's worth of excess deaths. NYC has already had 4-5 months worth of excess mortality, and are not yet through it. Is he just uninformed or intentionally lying? Hard to tell. He claims that R0 is meaningless without also including a measure of how long a person remains infectious. That makes no sense. The definition of R0 already includes all the infections over the whole period of infectivity.
rogerkirkness 7y ago
Logistic functions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

25 points by miked85 7y ago

I've had the same opinion since the start of this thing (you can go through my post history if you want), and I've been astounded at how incredibly unpopular it is. If you try and point out what's happening with the data, people on Reddit and elsewhere will attack you. It's weird how the same people who are touting the lockdown are also saying we need to "listen to scientists" etc, but they aren't doing that: those people simply ignore or deny the facts and data which don't agree with their doomsday hypothesis. This whole situation is so emotionally charged that it overrides the good sense of good people. EDIT: If anyone is a fan of Warren Buffett, you should take some time from your day to watch the Berkshire meeting from yesterday. I really appreciate how he puts everything in context with none of the politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE

s9w 7y ago
My take: China panicked and so did the west. As it became clear this is nothing unusual, leaders can't admit such a cataclysmic mistake and double down. Now many common places for discussion (Twitter and the coronavirus Reddit for example) are clearly under some form of control and shamelessly pro-panic. Others go with the flow (HN) which is the same in this case. And as usual only the uncensored places allow for dissenting opinions.
- brenden2 7y ago
  Maybe so, but I don't think it's China's fault, or the US governments fault for that matter. I guess it doesn't help that the current administration doesn't instill a sense of security, but I think the state of things is mostly caused by the media whipping people into a frenzy. The virus does what it does, regardless of what the talking heads of state say. For example, Google was touting how great their YouTube stats were for news content because people were so hungry for news about coronavirus. So the news gave people what they want: doomsday all day every day. This corona thing has been very profitable for media. While I haven't checked today, I'm sure if you go to the front page of any mainstream news site all you see is negativity (CNN, NYT, Fox, etc) and articles about how everything is falling apart. So, I think if we're to blame anyone, we should first blame ourselves and second blame the news and their clickbaity-ness.
  - s9w 7y ago
    I'm fine with blaming the news first, then the leaders. There is so much context missing from the reports. When did we ever have counters for other infectious diseases? Naturally people follow the panic - I did so too at first. I did learn a lot about law during this though. In particular how little it all matters, even the core parts of national constitutions. All overruled, changed and whatever in days time. Those laws mean nothing.
    - brenden2 7y ago
      That's true. The government does what it wants at the end of the day. If they don't like the laws they can just change them.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > As it became clear this is nothing unusual, Sure, because hiring festival companies to run temporary morgues is what we do every year. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/29/concerns-over-training-emergency-morgues-run-uk-festival-firm-london https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/29/concerns-ove... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-crisis-puts-pressure-on-crematoria-and-morgues-in-uk https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-cr... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-lockdown-temporary-workers-ppe-morgue-conditions-london-a9491176.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-...
  - brenden2 7y ago
    This is a common rebuttal. Nobody is suggesting the virus is a hoax, or that it's not killing anyone, or that it isn't bad. What people are saying is that 1) these lockdown measures aren't effective and 2) the side effects caused by keeping everyone under house arrest do more harm than the virus. Yes, it's true that the virus spreads very quickly, but it's actually not very lethal. So sure it happens all at once, but it's nowhere close to as bad as the early models predicted. Hospitals aren't anywhere near capacity, in fact in most places they're having to lay off medical workers and close down sections of hospitals because they can't afford to keep their doors open. If you want to keep spreading nonsense, then please do because I respect your right to do so, but I implore you (and others) to take a good hard look at the facts and try to understand what's really going on.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > but it's actually not very lethal It's pretty lethal to people over 60. > but it's nowhere close to as bad as the early models predicted. But you think the lockdowns don't work? > Hospitals aren't anywhere near capacity, Not true. > in fact in most places they're having to lay off medical workers and close down sections of hospitals because they can't afford to keep their doors open. Not true.
      - brenden2 7y ago
        I hate to break it to you, but the older you get the more likely you are to die from any cause. Take a look at the data yourself: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm
TopHand 7y ago
"Give me liberty or give me death". Except if the death is by COVID-19, then I will allow you to rob me of all freedom and dignity and further, to steal a prosperous future from my children.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
  It's funnier (when not scary) how my friends who claim to be staunch anarchists and antifa fans now suddenly berate all critique of conforming to indefinite house confinement mandated by the state.
  - mattsofatso 6y ago
    Reminds me of that old saying... "there are no anarchists in the fox hole"... oh wait, that was atheists, but yeah.
bobosha 7y ago
In situations like these, the overwhelming instinct is: "better safe than sorry". Some of the measures might have been overkill, but better err on the side of caution. I feel we don't yet have a full perspective to draw any conclusions, while in the middle of it. There will be plenty of analyses, counter-analyses, and multiple books & dissertations written about this period. We'll have to wait and see how history judges Drs. Fauci, Birx, Jha, et al vs. Drs. Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, et al. It will be fascinating to read about it.
- brenden2 7y ago
  Yeah, I understand that. Fear is, without a doubt, the most powerful emotion. And I'll admit, there were times I was fearful. I live in NYC and during the peak the streets were eerily quiet and I was afraid people would start rioting. Thankfully now things are much calmer and people seem to be going back to normal, slowly.
hyko 7y ago
Why are you surprised? It’s the mainstream view, and people are looking for unity because the countermeasures that are being attempted rely on it to varying degrees. No authority I’m aware of ever suggested this was a “doomsday” virus by the way, merely that it had the potential to overrun the healthcare systems of even highly developed nations, kills millions, trash the economy etc. I would say that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you’ve got to recognise when you’re filing a minority report as well. Mainstream epidemiologists, virologists etc. are not just a bunch of schmucks who are having a go at analysis because they’ve got time on their hands: this is their life’s work. That’s not an argument from authority–we should still scrutinise their findings–but nor is it an automatic condemnation of it. This especially applies when distinguished scientists are commenting outside their own field of expertise (how many people wasted money on megadoses of vitamin C because it was endorsed by Linus Pauling?). Contrarian wisdom is always appealing, but it is not always right.
- brenden2 7y ago
  Believe me, I've been aware for my whole life that I'm a "contrarian" but not in the way that gets upvotes and likes on the internet. I guess that's why I have no friends and nobody wants to be associated with me. I used to think HN was a place where you could talk about the reality of the world, not the sensationalized or BS version. Maybe it once was, but it really isn't anymore. Nowadays YC uses HN as a way to shill their companies, and the average IQ of commenters seems to have reverted to the mean. At least there's lobste.rs, which is a much better community now.
  - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
    Agreed on lobste.rs! (yet here we are)
  - hyko 7y ago
    Oh man. I feel strongly that you should be able to disagree with people and still be friends with them, so it sucks that you feel your views are isolating you. I guess I never thought of HN as a social network. You’ve got way higher karma than me, so many HNers are agreeing with what you have to say in general. Do you think you can’t talk about the real world anymore on HN? That’s not been my experience recently; I’ve made plenty of unpopular comments but people always seem willing to engage in debate. Never heard of lobste.rs, thanks for the link, I will check it out!

randall 7y ago

I've heard this from the same places I usually hear conspiracy theories which is to say: I don't think this is untrue but it definitely isn't validated or verified. Heretics wouldn't be allowed in epidemiological circles, which is why epidemiologists wouldn't be quick to spout this off, but the question still begs: what would a time bound have to do with a virus? And is there a proper comparative a/b case (perhaps in a similar country) to look at? And are there other viruses that behave this way? Even shorter: Why would this virus be different than any virus before it? If it were created in a lab, which some intelligence agencies (and other conspiracy theorists) believe, could that account for it? Then why? I'm unconvinced largely by the conspiracy theory, but I also don't necessarily think it's been convincingly proven false.

hyko 7y ago

Headline: “Nobel prize-winning scientist: the Covid-19 epidemic was never exponential” TFA: “After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths)...”

miked85 7y ago
you might as well quote the entire sentence: "After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”."
- hyko 7y ago
  Not necessary, as my point was the headline is grossly misleading; the Nobel prize-winning scientist explicitly refutes the claim in the first part of that sentence.
amalter 7y ago
He doesn’t present an alternative hypothesis though for why (Or maybe it’s implied that this is somehow the natural order of things?) I’m guessing he’s looking at modern proto-pandemics, because you only have to go back to 1918 to see exponential part of the s curve last longer than two weeks. Wouldn’t the null hypothesis than be in these modern times, where we understand germ theory, people start naturally practicing social distancing due to fear? Otherwise what action is slowing virus contagion?

aivisol 7y ago

> but I think we’ve really screwed up. We’ve caused pollution, we’ve allowed the world’s population to increase threefold in my lifetime, we’ve caused the problems of global warming and now we’ve left your generation with a real mess in order to save a relatively small number of very old people. I agree with him on this. Just wanted to add that it is mostly at the expense of children - they are least to blame for all this mess but suffer most. No friends, no proper school, heck, not even going out with their bicycles or skateboards for months. I don't think they deserved this and I don't know how we will ever pay them back.

jjgreen 7y ago
Daddy, tell us again about the restaurants
dwaltrip 7y ago
No one "deserved" this pandemic. The universe isn't some sort of cosmic judge. The laws of nature simply tick forward blindly and ceaselessly, and we make do as best we can :) P.S. I'm a compatibilist, so I see no contradictions in this.

aaron695 7y ago

He says a lot of stuff that's all hipster, and also probably true. BUT this article is about this - "After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”. This bit implies some sort of God, or the virus has sentience reason for "some kind of break kicks in" So unless you want to explain this within the realms of reason, this article contributes nothing, because this is what it's about.

sonofgod 7y ago

Transcript of video via autogenerated subtitles: https://pastebin.com/P4z71D8W https://pastebin.com/P4z71D8W

sonofgod 7y ago
> if you have twice as long infectious and half the R 0 you'll get exactly the same growth rate (7m15) uh... no. (I am not an epidemiologist, but neither is he, so...) R is an estimate of the total infections one person will cause. So if you're infected for twice as long, and R remains the same, then the growth rate will be halved. If you also halve R, the growth rate will also be halved. I don't believe he understands what he's talking about.

hprotagonist 7y ago

Damn near everything in the biological world winds up looking sigmoidal. The question is always “over what timescale”

jsnell 7y ago

There are an amazing number of inaccuracies packed in to this article. The prediction this professor made about the number of deaths was not at start of February, like claimed in the article. It was three weeks later, when China was way past the peak. The claim that the PFR has converged to the same number everywhere seems totally unfounded, though it's hard to say for sure given how vague he is about which regions he is comparing. But e.g. London and NYC are very similar in size, NYC has more deaths by a large factor. He claims that the virus will peter out after inflicting one month's worth of excess deaths. NYC has already had 4-5 months worth of excess mortality, and are not yet through it. Is he just uninformed or intentionally lying? Hard to tell. He claims that R0 is meaningless without also including a measure of how long a person remains infectious. That makes no sense. The definition of R0 already includes all the infections over the whole period of infectivity.

rogerkirkness 7y ago

Logistic functions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function