4 ms·

The disclaimer was added after the fact. So you're saying that the guy is open to criticism of his work and correcting it. You say that like it's a bad thing.

by crusso 6y ago

The disclaimer was added after the fact. So you're saying that the guy is open to criticism of his work and correcting it. You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't see how it's irresponsible to work hard at being a more informed citizen and helping to pass that information on to others.

btilly 6y ago
The fact that he changed that without taking into account any of the other flaws in his work suggests that he is not, actually, open to criticism of his work. Here are some examples. He shows charts estimating per age range fatality rates and leaves out the most vulnerable group. He estimates an IFR and thinks that is comparable with a CFR. (They are not.) He is apparently unaware of the fact that IFRs have long been thought to be a bit under 1%. (For example https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... in mid-March was the paper that convinced the UK to do a lockdown - it used an estimated IFR of 0.9%.) He does his own IFR calculation for the least vulnerable groups without looking at research showing the full IFR. He complains about hospitals being underloaded while refusing to acknowledge that hospitals would be overloaded without lockdowns. He fails to admit that it is extremely hard to limit transmissions within managed care facilities, and in an environment with lots of COVID-19 around you, personal distancing measures provide very little protection. (In other words we cannot simply "isolate the old people" and expect it to work.) In other words he is ignoring every widely known fact that undermines his position. Which not coincidentally are the facts that lead everyone else to the opposite conclusion from his. Given that he can't fail to have seen many points like these, his leaving them out of his analysis shows dishonesty on his part. And no, he is not attempting to correct this fault.

by crusso 6y ago

btilly 6y ago

The fact that he changed that without taking into account any of the other flaws in his work suggests that he is not, actually, open to criticism of his work. Here are some examples. He shows charts estimating per age range fatality rates and leaves out the most vulnerable group. He estimates an IFR and thinks that is comparable with a CFR. (They are not.) He is apparently unaware of the fact that IFRs have long been thought to be a bit under 1%. (For example https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... in mid-March was the paper that convinced the UK to do a lockdown - it used an estimated IFR of 0.9%.) He does his own IFR calculation for the least vulnerable groups without looking at research showing the full IFR. He complains about hospitals being underloaded while refusing to acknowledge that hospitals would be overloaded without lockdowns. He fails to admit that it is extremely hard to limit transmissions within managed care facilities, and in an environment with lots of COVID-19 around you, personal distancing measures provide very little protection. (In other words we cannot simply "isolate the old people" and expect it to work.) In other words he is ignoring every widely known fact that undermines his position. Which not coincidentally are the facts that lead everyone else to the opposite conclusion from his. Given that he can't fail to have seen many points like these, his leaving them out of his analysis shows dishonesty on his part. And no, he is not attempting to correct this fault.