3 ms·

perhaps because the data is not nearly as simple, all indications are that the data are quite contradictory, we neither understand nor are able to properly des

perhaps because the data is not nearly as simple, all indications are that the data are quite contradictory, we neither understand nor are able to properly describe who gets infected and why exactly those and not others. I cringe at all these "simulations" in various journals and newspapers, where you can drag a slider of 5 people infecting 6 more etc. and then seeing the outcome - completely useless for decision making it's really not how it works at all, the world is a far more varied mosaic the signals far more noisy and hugely affected by local variations

rconti 6y ago
The fact that we're not testing enough to really understand the case fatality rate is definitely a governmental failure in the ability to (even attempt to!) ramp up and implement rigorous testing. However, I think the transmissibility and other such information is just a HARD problem with how quickly this has come on, with different factors in every single locality where it's happening.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  That may have been the case previously, but is not my understanding of the current state. At least in California, Tests are readily available and anyone who wants one can have one.
  - rconti 6y ago
    So, first of all, my wife works directly with patients in a hospital in Santa Clara, and she just got tested for the first time yesterday. You're correct that anyone who wants a test can get one (or, if you're wrong, I'm wrong, too). But that's a very different thing from the kind of frequent, high-volume testing we'd need to actually understand what's going on with COVID-19. There's a serious selection bias at play here when the only people who are ACTUALLY getting tested are those who suspect they might have been exposed or are showing symptoms.
wlll 6y ago
Just because the data isn't there doesn't mean they have done a good job though (IMO they mostly haven't at all). You can still act without data, you just don't know exactly what effect it will have because even without data some actions just seem quite likely to have a positive outcome. There's a great clip of Dr Michael J Ryan, Executive Director at WHO who that's relevant that's worth watching: https://twitter.com/Prof_S_Taylor/status/1238598239902994433 https://twitter.com/Prof_S_Taylor/status/1238598239902994433 Social distancing, lockdowns, masks, these all intuitively help the situation, and if and when it is reaslised that they don't, then you can withdraw the rules or advice. However, it's impossible to regain the benefits of things you didn't do if you start to do them much later. You are right, there was contradictory data, but what governments should have, and should still be doing, is acting where there is uncertainty, not waiting for certainty before acting, and the fact that many aren't, or are doing it to such a limited degree, is the problem.
- mantap 6y ago
  Ironically many of the UK's woes are due to rigidly following WHO advice. For example, when multiple countries in Europe and the US were recommending or mandating face coverings, the UK rigidly stuck to the WHO line that there's "no evidence" that face coverings are effective. They reluctantly changed course last week, but it's too late now, the public is now set in their way. The same goes for border controls. The UK is only now thinking about instituting a 14 day quarantine for arrivals as it had been sticking rigidly to the WHO advice from February that measures at the border are "unnecessary". This kind of mentality pervades the British government. Rules must be followed at any cost. Many people voted for Brexit simply because they preferred having blue coloured passports instead of red ones. There's some EU guideline that passports should be red and this was blown up by the media into a kind of rallying cry. UK could have just disobeyed the guideline but they stuck rigidly to it even when it was irrational to do so.
  - wlll 6y ago
    Yeah, the WHO is't completely right, I bever said they were, but it doesn't have to be either/or. You can do "test test test" as the WHO said, at the same time as enforcing face masks, which they have not. The UK government has done neither of those things yet. I don't think this is about following the rules, the WHO provide advice and perhaps guidelines here. I think this is perhaps a fear of doing the wrong thing, combined with a desire to seem like they're in control. If you hold back 14 day quarantine "until the time is right", then get up in front of people and say "the right time is tea time next Thursday" it makes you seem like you know what you are doing. > They reluctantly changed course last week, but it's too late now, the public is now set in their way. I'm just south of Manchester. Almost no-one in my area is wearing a mask, and since Monday when the new catch phrase was announced social distancing seems to have gone out the window.
Barrin92 6y ago
>all indications are that the data are quite contradictory, we neither understand nor are able to properly describe who gets infected and why exactly those and not others. This is really a secondary issue. You don't really need crazy amounts of "data" to respond effectively to a pandemic. We know full well how to deal with viral outbreaks in general, and when looking at other countries that have the exact same amount of information as everyone else has the differences could not be more stark. Hong Kong and New York City are quite comparable on most metrics, and look at the different results even though the former neighbours the outbreak. I wish we could finally bury this data-ism, as if it wasn't possible to make sound decisions under uncertainty. You need zero data to provide protective gear, enact hygiene measures, distance, and just follow general safety measures. Instead of experts talking about r-values you need the civic population to folow basic rules and the supply chains to be able to manufacture the necessary equipment.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rconti 6y ago

The fact that we're not testing enough to really understand the case fatality rate is definitely a governmental failure in the ability to (even attempt to!) ramp up and implement rigorous testing. However, I think the transmissibility and other such information is just a HARD problem with how quickly this has come on, with different factors in every single locality where it's happening.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
That may have been the case previously, but is not my understanding of the current state. At least in California, Tests are readily available and anyone who wants one can have one.
- rconti 6y ago
  So, first of all, my wife works directly with patients in a hospital in Santa Clara, and she just got tested for the first time yesterday. You're correct that anyone who wants a test can get one (or, if you're wrong, I'm wrong, too). But that's a very different thing from the kind of frequent, high-volume testing we'd need to actually understand what's going on with COVID-19. There's a serious selection bias at play here when the only people who are ACTUALLY getting tested are those who suspect they might have been exposed or are showing symptoms.

wlll 6y ago

Just because the data isn't there doesn't mean they have done a good job though (IMO they mostly haven't at all). You can still act without data, you just don't know exactly what effect it will have because even without data some actions just seem quite likely to have a positive outcome. There's a great clip of Dr Michael J Ryan, Executive Director at WHO who that's relevant that's worth watching: https://twitter.com/Prof_S_Taylor/status/1238598239902994433 https://twitter.com/Prof_S_Taylor/status/1238598239902994433 Social distancing, lockdowns, masks, these all intuitively help the situation, and if and when it is reaslised that they don't, then you can withdraw the rules or advice. However, it's impossible to regain the benefits of things you didn't do if you start to do them much later. You are right, there was contradictory data, but what governments should have, and should still be doing, is acting where there is uncertainty, not waiting for certainty before acting, and the fact that many aren't, or are doing it to such a limited degree, is the problem.

mantap 6y ago
Ironically many of the UK's woes are due to rigidly following WHO advice. For example, when multiple countries in Europe and the US were recommending or mandating face coverings, the UK rigidly stuck to the WHO line that there's "no evidence" that face coverings are effective. They reluctantly changed course last week, but it's too late now, the public is now set in their way. The same goes for border controls. The UK is only now thinking about instituting a 14 day quarantine for arrivals as it had been sticking rigidly to the WHO advice from February that measures at the border are "unnecessary". This kind of mentality pervades the British government. Rules must be followed at any cost. Many people voted for Brexit simply because they preferred having blue coloured passports instead of red ones. There's some EU guideline that passports should be red and this was blown up by the media into a kind of rallying cry. UK could have just disobeyed the guideline but they stuck rigidly to it even when it was irrational to do so.
- wlll 6y ago
  Yeah, the WHO is't completely right, I bever said they were, but it doesn't have to be either/or. You can do "test test test" as the WHO said, at the same time as enforcing face masks, which they have not. The UK government has done neither of those things yet. I don't think this is about following the rules, the WHO provide advice and perhaps guidelines here. I think this is perhaps a fear of doing the wrong thing, combined with a desire to seem like they're in control. If you hold back 14 day quarantine "until the time is right", then get up in front of people and say "the right time is tea time next Thursday" it makes you seem like you know what you are doing. > They reluctantly changed course last week, but it's too late now, the public is now set in their way. I'm just south of Manchester. Almost no-one in my area is wearing a mask, and since Monday when the new catch phrase was announced social distancing seems to have gone out the window.

Barrin92 6y ago

>all indications are that the data are quite contradictory, we neither understand nor are able to properly describe who gets infected and why exactly those and not others. This is really a secondary issue. You don't really need crazy amounts of "data" to respond effectively to a pandemic. We know full well how to deal with viral outbreaks in general, and when looking at other countries that have the exact same amount of information as everyone else has the differences could not be more stark. Hong Kong and New York City are quite comparable on most metrics, and look at the different results even though the former neighbours the outbreak. I wish we could finally bury this data-ism, as if it wasn't possible to make sound decisions under uncertainty. You need zero data to provide protective gear, enact hygiene measures, distance, and just follow general safety measures. Instead of experts talking about r-values you need the civic population to folow basic rules and the supply chains to be able to manufacture the necessary equipment.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]