4 ms·

> So, unless some new mitigation measures are going to be introduced _right now_, You will be able to claim that any changes made by local and state government

> So, unless some new mitigation measures are going to be introduced _right now_, You will be able to claim that any changes made by local and state governments in the next few days/weeks “did the trick”. Nevertheless, this is a fair escape hatch when the following prediction does not come true: > this record-breaking growth will continue for quite more than a few weeks, followed by the corresponding growth of deaths a month later. We are far away from the saturation point and any resemblance of "population immunity". You will be proven wrong, both about the coming “wave of death”, and about how far we are from the saturation point. I’m quoting this and publicly disagreeing today, so that you might remember later on, and maybe even acknowledge that you got it wrong.

elipsey 6y ago
Hi. I read the essay "Pandemic Woo" which is linked in your profile. Is seems like your position is that: --COVID response strategy based on invalid "post-modern science", --the conclusion that the disease death rate is order of one percent is incorrect --and therefore, the policy response is grossly disproportionate and harmful. It seems like you are arguing about facts not values, and you think the disease death rate is not really order of %1. Is this what you mean? I'm also asking because I have heard many heated statements about "post-modern" science around here as of late that wherein the speaker seems to treat that concept as common knowledge, and then walks off without explaining themselves, but I don't really understand what they are on about.
- guscost 6y ago
  The first point is characterized correctly. We are reaping the whirlwind from a pernicious post-modern academic culture that has been thoroughly corrupted, even in the traditionally "harder" sciences to a degree. Here is a much drier, but still excellent, argument along the same lines: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-validation-in-a-world-without-meaning/ https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-v... The second characterization is way off base. All IFR numbers are rough estimates at this point, and in fact the number is just a model parameter that does not correspond to anything in the real world, so it's a bit hard to talk about any "fact" there. The disease evolves, treatment protocols change (early venting was a terrible mistake), and susceptibility may vary widely from community to community. Still, the most recent CDC estimate for this model parameter is 0.26%. The third is a prediction, not an established fact. Right now there is no way to know what the long-term effects of our policy response will be. I have cited many anecdotal "bad" effects which (together with others) I believe will outweigh the "good" effects, but we will have to wait and see.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    To your third point, a recent study funded by the Gates Foundation estimates excess deaths over the next 6 months caused indirectly due to the virus response; > While the COVID-19 pandemic will increase mortality due to the virus, it is also likely to increase mortality indirectly. In this study, we estimate the additional maternal and under-5 child deaths resulting from the potential disruption of health systems and decreased access to food. At the low end they predict 250,000 excess child deaths and 12,000 excess maternal deaths, and at the high end 1,150,000 excess child deaths and 56,000 excess maternal deaths due to decreased access to health care and food. The number of missed vaccines and cancer screenings alone multiplied worldwide turns into a massive hit to public health. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30229-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
ericb 6y ago
On what basis do you stake your claim?
- guscost 6y ago
  I'm commenting (as I always do) under my real name. I'm staking my personal reputation, and there is a very real chance that I'll be wrong.
  - ericb 6y ago
    I'm not asking about the stakes in that sense. Your claim is only interesting to the extent you can demonstrate a logical basis to believe it to be valid. Can you provide your reasoning? edit: Ok, I see you are the one with polemic blog post. I see that you seem to think it is "just a cold" because it is a coronavirus. It seems you are making a categorization error. Like saying because there are garden snakes, having a cobra in your house is no big deal--just a snake! Why would the waves of death never come? So far more people have died than WWII. The deaths lag new infections, and new infections have spiked. I see you are interested in other folks admitting they are wrong--will you?
    - guscost 6y ago
      > Can you provide your reasoning? Susceptibility varies widely between individuals, with four grades of antibody response, as well as at least one form of T-Cell-mediated response, already documented in the literature. There is enough evidence to suggest that this virus is airborne, and if everyone were completely susceptible the "true" R0 (this model parameter is a convenient fiction, of course) would be close to that of measles. Therefore it has already spread very far in any dense population that was susceptible, and we are basically already at herd immunity in NYC and many other places. > Ok, I see you are the one with polemic blog post. Yay, I'm a niche HN celebrity! > I see that you seem to think it is "just a cold" because it is a coronavirus. You are skipping over a critical detail, which is that any virus can be much more virulent after it jumps between species. But yes this one is basically a new cold, and in time it will present much like all the others (if it becomes endemic). > So far more people have died than WWII. What the fuck??? > I see you are interested in other folks admitting they are wrong--will you? If half a million Americans die from this thing (not merely with it, and before it becomes just another cold, not over the next 20 years), you can count on it. This will not happen.
atemerev 6y ago
Sure, a fair point, I am not the all-seeing all-knowing authority. You have mentioned "a few days" — how about meeting here the next Friday and see who was right? There won't be any significant increase in the daily deaths (yet), but there should be another increase in the number of cases. (I have (unfortunately) already won a few bets like that, but it's always a chance that I am wrong this time, of course). In fact, there is already a failed prediction in your essay: "but we will fail to see the 'second wave' that was predicted". The second wave happened. Exactly in the way we, "postmodernist scientists", have predicted. I will be the first one to tell you that indeed, there are many problems in modern science. But this is not one of them.
- guscost 6y ago
  Well sure, but I don't disagree that lots more (both confirmed and probable) cases will be counted over the next week in these places. I'll argue that NYC will not have anything remotely close to Arizona's spike if you like. How about we meet up in a month and look at the death numbers? I predict that the national 14-day average will continue to decrease, or maybe flatten out for a bit.
  - atemerev 6y ago
    Agreed. I don’t see how there won’t be an increase in deaths in a month (save for some new miracle drug, which I doubt — antivirals are hard), so sure, see you in a month. My email is in my profile. (The bet is on nationwide increase).
    - guscost 6y ago
      Ahh I was hoping you'd go for an exponential increase - I might well lose this bet. But sounds good, see you then.
  - coding123 6y ago
    In a month you guys may be unable to reply, FYI.

elipsey 6y ago

Hi. I read the essay "Pandemic Woo" which is linked in your profile. Is seems like your position is that: --COVID response strategy based on invalid "post-modern science", --the conclusion that the disease death rate is order of one percent is incorrect --and therefore, the policy response is grossly disproportionate and harmful. It seems like you are arguing about facts not values, and you think the disease death rate is not really order of %1. Is this what you mean? I'm also asking because I have heard many heated statements about "post-modern" science around here as of late that wherein the speaker seems to treat that concept as common knowledge, and then walks off without explaining themselves, but I don't really understand what they are on about.

guscost 6y ago
The first point is characterized correctly. We are reaping the whirlwind from a pernicious post-modern academic culture that has been thoroughly corrupted, even in the traditionally "harder" sciences to a degree. Here is a much drier, but still excellent, argument along the same lines: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-validation-in-a-world-without-meaning/ https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/science-without-v... The second characterization is way off base. All IFR numbers are rough estimates at this point, and in fact the number is just a model parameter that does not correspond to anything in the real world, so it's a bit hard to talk about any "fact" there. The disease evolves, treatment protocols change (early venting was a terrible mistake), and susceptibility may vary widely from community to community. Still, the most recent CDC estimate for this model parameter is 0.26%. The third is a prediction, not an established fact. Right now there is no way to know what the long-term effects of our policy response will be. I have cited many anecdotal "bad" effects which (together with others) I believe will outweigh the "good" effects, but we will have to wait and see.
- zaroth 6y ago
  To your third point, a recent study funded by the Gates Foundation estimates excess deaths over the next 6 months caused indirectly due to the virus response; > While the COVID-19 pandemic will increase mortality due to the virus, it is also likely to increase mortality indirectly. In this study, we estimate the additional maternal and under-5 child deaths resulting from the potential disruption of health systems and decreased access to food. At the low end they predict 250,000 excess child deaths and 12,000 excess maternal deaths, and at the high end 1,150,000 excess child deaths and 56,000 excess maternal deaths due to decreased access to health care and food. The number of missed vaccines and cancer screenings alone multiplied worldwide turns into a massive hit to public health. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30229-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...

ericb 6y ago

On what basis do you stake your claim?

guscost 6y ago
I'm commenting (as I always do) under my real name. I'm staking my personal reputation, and there is a very real chance that I'll be wrong.
- ericb 6y ago
  I'm not asking about the stakes in that sense. Your claim is only interesting to the extent you can demonstrate a logical basis to believe it to be valid. Can you provide your reasoning? edit: Ok, I see you are the one with polemic blog post. I see that you seem to think it is "just a cold" because it is a coronavirus. It seems you are making a categorization error. Like saying because there are garden snakes, having a cobra in your house is no big deal--just a snake! Why would the waves of death never come? So far more people have died than WWII. The deaths lag new infections, and new infections have spiked. I see you are interested in other folks admitting they are wrong--will you?
  - guscost 6y ago
    > Can you provide your reasoning? Susceptibility varies widely between individuals, with four grades of antibody response, as well as at least one form of T-Cell-mediated response, already documented in the literature. There is enough evidence to suggest that this virus is airborne, and if everyone were completely susceptible the "true" R0 (this model parameter is a convenient fiction, of course) would be close to that of measles. Therefore it has already spread very far in any dense population that was susceptible, and we are basically already at herd immunity in NYC and many other places. > Ok, I see you are the one with polemic blog post. Yay, I'm a niche HN celebrity! > I see that you seem to think it is "just a cold" because it is a coronavirus. You are skipping over a critical detail, which is that any virus can be much more virulent after it jumps between species. But yes this one is basically a new cold, and in time it will present much like all the others (if it becomes endemic). > So far more people have died than WWII. What the fuck??? > I see you are interested in other folks admitting they are wrong--will you? If half a million Americans die from this thing (not merely with it, and before it becomes just another cold, not over the next 20 years), you can count on it. This will not happen.

atemerev 6y ago

Sure, a fair point, I am not the all-seeing all-knowing authority. You have mentioned "a few days" — how about meeting here the next Friday and see who was right? There won't be any significant increase in the daily deaths (yet), but there should be another increase in the number of cases. (I have (unfortunately) already won a few bets like that, but it's always a chance that I am wrong this time, of course). In fact, there is already a failed prediction in your essay: "but we will fail to see the 'second wave' that was predicted". The second wave happened. Exactly in the way we, "postmodernist scientists", have predicted. I will be the first one to tell you that indeed, there are many problems in modern science. But this is not one of them.

guscost 6y ago
Well sure, but I don't disagree that lots more (both confirmed and probable) cases will be counted over the next week in these places. I'll argue that NYC will not have anything remotely close to Arizona's spike if you like. How about we meet up in a month and look at the death numbers? I predict that the national 14-day average will continue to decrease, or maybe flatten out for a bit.
- atemerev 6y ago
  Agreed. I don’t see how there won’t be an increase in deaths in a month (save for some new miracle drug, which I doubt — antivirals are hard), so sure, see you in a month. My email is in my profile. (The bet is on nationwide increase).
  - guscost 6y ago
    Ahh I was hoping you'd go for an exponential increase - I might well lose this bet. But sounds good, see you then.
- coding123 6y ago
  In a month you guys may be unable to reply, FYI.