5 ms·

The director of the NIH feels these anecdotal reports are credible, along with doctors in France, Hong Kong, and Italy (as the article mentions). So I don't me

by nend 6y ago

The director of the NIH feels these anecdotal reports are credible, along with doctors in France, Hong Kong, and Italy (as the article mentions). So I don't mean to be rude about it but what exactly is your expertise that lends credence to your theory that all these doctors opinions (who have directly treated COVID-19 and SARS patients) should be dismissed due to your theory of Americans being fat and sedentary? Frankly, on the surface your comments sounds like the typically dismissive HN attitude that's been persistent on this site (and the engineering sphere in general) since the on-set.

dcolkitt 6y ago
Nowhere in the article did it say that the directory of the NIH call the anecdotal reports "credible". The NIH is conducting a survey, which is the only responsible response given the magnitude of the pandemic. But that is not the same as an endorsement of credibility at all. If testing a hypothesis meant endorsing a hypothesis, then science could never happen. As for "doctors in France and Hong Kong", there's 10 million physicians worldwide. Pick any theory, and you'll find no shortage of doctors somewhere who endorses it. Despite what public perception, being a physician does not make one a scientist. The reality is that the vast majority of doctors do not understand basic statistics[1]. So yes, I would indeed claim that opinion of statisticians, engineers, physical scientists, economists and other fields with expertise in statistics can in many cases be as relevant, it not more than relevant than physicians. Particularly, in cases like this, when the conclusions are being made off a small signal in a large-scale dataset. [1] https://medium.com/wintoncentre/why-doctors-are-bad-at-stats-and-how-that-could-affect-your-health-e870d551bcfe https://medium.com/wintoncentre/why-doctors-are-bad-at-stats...
- nend 6y ago
  >Nowhere in the article did it say that the directory of the NIH call the anecdotal reports "credible". Sounds like nitpicking to me. Dr. Fauci directly says it needs to be seriously looked at. >“Anecdotally, there’s no question that there are a considerable number of individuals who have a postviral syndrome that really, in many respects, can incapacitate them for weeks and weeks following so-called recovery and clearing of the virus,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in July during a COVID-19 webinar organized by the International AIDS Society. Also in the webinar: >"This is something we really need to seriously look at because it very well might be a post-viral syndrome associated with COVID-19". That sounds like he finds them credible. No one's arguing doctors are sometimes wrong. The issue is whether it's warranted to dismiss the opinions of independent experts around the world who have now seen multiple new coronavirus outbreaks, even if we don't have scientific studies on the current coronavirus outbreak.
  - karpierz 6y ago
    "Looked at" means we should gather some evidence, not that the accounts are true.
    - nend 6y ago
      "Credible" means believable, plausible, reasonable. Dr. Fauci is clearly saying the reports coming from doctors and patients around the world shouldn't be dismissed, but should be taken seriously and investigated further.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
just-juan-post 6y ago
The accounts are true but the "size" of their stories is an indirect fear superspreader. The reality is that these things effect like .00002% of the population. But a news story shared today on the Internet can make tens of millions in the general the population think it could happen to them.
yodsanklai 6y ago
> the typically dismissive HN attitude that's been persistent on this site (and the engineering sphere in general) since the on-set. Isn't it a good thing to show some scepticism? It's for this type of comments that I like HN.

by nend 6y ago

dcolkitt 6y ago

Nowhere in the article did it say that the directory of the NIH call the anecdotal reports "credible". The NIH is conducting a survey, which is the only responsible response given the magnitude of the pandemic. But that is not the same as an endorsement of credibility at all. If testing a hypothesis meant endorsing a hypothesis, then science could never happen. As for "doctors in France and Hong Kong", there's 10 million physicians worldwide. Pick any theory, and you'll find no shortage of doctors somewhere who endorses it. Despite what public perception, being a physician does not make one a scientist. The reality is that the vast majority of doctors do not understand basic statistics[1]. So yes, I would indeed claim that opinion of statisticians, engineers, physical scientists, economists and other fields with expertise in statistics can in many cases be as relevant, it not more than relevant than physicians. Particularly, in cases like this, when the conclusions are being made off a small signal in a large-scale dataset. [1] https://medium.com/wintoncentre/why-doctors-are-bad-at-stats-and-how-that-could-affect-your-health-e870d551bcfe https://medium.com/wintoncentre/why-doctors-are-bad-at-stats...

nend 6y ago
>Nowhere in the article did it say that the directory of the NIH call the anecdotal reports "credible". Sounds like nitpicking to me. Dr. Fauci directly says it needs to be seriously looked at. >“Anecdotally, there’s no question that there are a considerable number of individuals who have a postviral syndrome that really, in many respects, can incapacitate them for weeks and weeks following so-called recovery and clearing of the virus,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in July during a COVID-19 webinar organized by the International AIDS Society. Also in the webinar: >"This is something we really need to seriously look at because it very well might be a post-viral syndrome associated with COVID-19". That sounds like he finds them credible. No one's arguing doctors are sometimes wrong. The issue is whether it's warranted to dismiss the opinions of independent experts around the world who have now seen multiple new coronavirus outbreaks, even if we don't have scientific studies on the current coronavirus outbreak.
- karpierz 6y ago
  "Looked at" means we should gather some evidence, not that the accounts are true.
  - nend 6y ago
    "Credible" means believable, plausible, reasonable. Dr. Fauci is clearly saying the reports coming from doctors and patients around the world shouldn't be dismissed, but should be taken seriously and investigated further.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

just-juan-post 6y ago

The accounts are true but the "size" of their stories is an indirect fear superspreader. The reality is that these things effect like .00002% of the population. But a news story shared today on the Internet can make tens of millions in the general the population think it could happen to them.

yodsanklai 6y ago

> the typically dismissive HN attitude that's been persistent on this site (and the engineering sphere in general) since the on-set. Isn't it a good thing to show some scepticism? It's for this type of comments that I like HN.