2 ms·

Dr. Fauci was just one voice in many at the time. It's easy to pick out the most accurate voice in retrospect. Take a look at this HN thread from 6 months ago.

by umvi 6y ago

Dr. Fauci was just one voice in many at the time. It's easy to pick out the most accurate voice in retrospect. Take a look at this HN thread from 6 months ago. People in the comments were extrapolating CDC/WHO statements and predicting millions of Americans were going to die. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548952

nharada 6y ago
Random HN commenters vs a leading expert on infectious diseases? Assuming everyone has the same expertise is also one way climate change deniers sow doubt about the science behind carbon emissions.
vharuck 6y ago
Let's start by clarifying something. There are two uses for predictions: making decisions based on the knowledge that something will be X units by a specific date (e.g. buying stocks), or making decisions to avoid something becoming X by that date (e.g. planning interventions). Nearly all predictions of COVID-19 death tolls are the latter. They're meant to predict the outcome if all things remain the same so we can decide if something more needs done. If we respond to predictions by changing behavior, and the eventual number is lower, that's a good thing. The prediction worked. The model assumed no change, so you can't use reality after a change to dismiss the model. Your link is a discussion about a news report from March 11th, before the US and state governments started taking drastic actions. I'm not surprised the model predicted dire results and was followed by drastic action.
klyrs 6y ago
He's not just the most accurate, he's also the designated official responsible for coordinating the nationwide covid response. You're comparing him to randos on HN making armchair extrapolations.

by umvi 6y ago

nharada 6y ago

Random HN commenters vs a leading expert on infectious diseases? Assuming everyone has the same expertise is also one way climate change deniers sow doubt about the science behind carbon emissions.

vharuck 6y ago

Let's start by clarifying something. There are two uses for predictions: making decisions based on the knowledge that something will be X units by a specific date (e.g. buying stocks), or making decisions to avoid something becoming X by that date (e.g. planning interventions). Nearly all predictions of COVID-19 death tolls are the latter. They're meant to predict the outcome if all things remain the same so we can decide if something more needs done. If we respond to predictions by changing behavior, and the eventual number is lower, that's a good thing. The prediction worked. The model assumed no change, so you can't use reality after a change to dismiss the model. Your link is a discussion about a news report from March 11th, before the US and state governments started taking drastic actions. I'm not surprised the model predicted dire results and was followed by drastic action.

klyrs 6y ago

He's not just the most accurate, he's also the designated official responsible for coordinating the nationwide covid response. You're comparing him to randos on HN making armchair extrapolations.