17 ms·

The Covid Science Wars

104 points by johntfella 6y ago

snowysunday 6y ago
The article is creating a 'debate' while completely missing out on the third and better option of getting rid of the virus as much as possible (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, ...)
- faitswulff 6y ago
  This kind of "both sides" journalism is incredibly wishy washy and is, itself, political. Sweden, the model for the "Great Barrington Declaration" has failed to control the virus and has proven that you cannot both allow unchecked spread in the general population: > Sweden has admitted its coronavirus immunity predictions were wrong as cases soar across the country https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-herd-immunity-second-wave-coronavirus-cases-hospitalisations-surge-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-herd-immunity-second-... As for the article's dire warnings about downstream (presumably economic) impacts, my friends in many of the countries you named are able to go out and enjoy a night on the town, albeit in masks. I expect many of these economies to recover much faster than America.
justicezyx 6y ago
> As people are thrown out of work as a direct result of lockdowns, and as more and more families find themselves unable to cover their rent or food, there have been sharp increases in domestic violence, homelessness and illegal drug use. This line of thoughts is quite puzzling to me. Domestic violence, drug uses are independent issues should be fixed by themselves. In face of grave danger, there is always a balance to make, and usually their danger is so high that it usually has a overriding effect. This type of balance is not unique to covid, it literally happens everywhere all the time.
- nradov 6y ago
  That is unrealistic. Domestic violence and drug abuse have been problems since the dawn of time. We should take steps to minimize them but they will never be fixed.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  The disagreement fundamentally is about whether there is grave danger.
zyxzevn 6y ago
Science was the first victim of covid-1984.
- dang 6y ago
  Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Threads are sensitive to initial conditions, so it's particularly important not to damage a fresh thread by dumping comments like this into its ecosystem. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- mc32 6y ago
  Agreed. Skepticism both healthy and fringe were both equally purged from much of mainstream online discussion, sadly.
umvi 6y ago
> In today’s COVID-19 wars, the global scientific divide leans heavily in favor of active, and sometimes even draconian, public health interventions, including widespread locking down of nonessential business, mandating masks, restricting travel and imposing quarantines. On the other side, some doctors, scientists and public health officials are questioning the wisdom of this approach in the face of massive unknowns about their efficacy and in light of the clear and growing evidence that such measures may not be working in some cases, and may also be causing net harm. It's very hard to dissent against the current narrative because any dissent can easily be framed as "killing people". I blame technology for our current predicament. If we didn't have computers and a global internet, there's no way we would be shutting down everything. We might be wearing masks and washing hands, but I would bet life would be largely the same. But because technology dangled the carrot of "we can save lives by doing everything virtually with computers" we are charging down that path optimizing for lives saved without giving fair consideration to other side effects of that (loneliness, depression, suicide, homelessness, civil unrest, economy). In some ways, taking a one time "excess deaths" hit as we have done with past pandemics does have measurable benefits in other ways, but you'll get shouted out of the room if you bring up that position even as a hypothetical.
- bharam 6y ago
  > we are charging down that path optimizing for lives saved without giving fair consideration to other side effects This reminds me of the French economist Frederic Bastiat's essay "That which is seen, and that which is not seen". The media (tv, newspapers and internet) were all hyper-focused on the number of deaths (initially) and later number of cases but always failed to take into account secondary consequences like those you mention. Link to Bastiat's essay: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/T...
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    Literally every media outlet I have encountered has published extensive coverage of the wider economic, health, social and political impact of the virus itself and the response to it.
jjgreen 6y ago
It is interesting to note that Thomas Lars Benfield's Danish mask study, whose empirical results are at odds with the "majoritarian view" mentioned in the article, has yet to be reported by the BBC.
- nojito 6y ago
  Because there are actual peer-reviewed studies about mask use and COVID. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-3003_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-3003_article https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6947e2-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6947e2-H.pdf
  - jjgreen 6y ago
    Benfield's study has been peer-reviewed and published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
    - acqq 6y ago
      As Anthony Fauci already pointed, one study can be both peer reviewed and be wrong.
      - acqq 6y ago
        I refer to July 31, 2020: https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-shoots-down-flawed-hydroxychloroquine-183931215.html https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-shoots-down-flawed-hydroxychlor... Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.): "it was peer reviewed" Fauci: "It doesn't matter. You can peer review something that's a bad study."
    - liversage 6y ago
      And the conclusion was that based on the data they were not able to determine if face masks protects you from infection or not. For some reason this has led to media concluding that face masks do not protect you but that's not the same. Another important effect of wearing a face mask is that it may protect other people from being infected by you but that effect was not part of the study.
acqq 6y ago
In this case, reading first the end of the page helps understanding the position of the authors: "Clarification added after publication: the authors have collaborated in the past with both John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad, who are discussed in this essay and in the accompanying sidebar." There is also obvious bias in the content of the article, which I guess is explainable by being an "opinion" where I guess the authors can't be told by the editors to change the content with the goal of reducing the bias -- I guess by definition they are expected to be "opinionated." The article is written in the tone of questioning if the government mandated measures work at all and published exactly as we can observe the measures explicitly working across Europe, sinking the numbers of the registered cases: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-07-29..latest&country=GBR~DEU~FRA~CZE~ITA&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=total_cases&pickerSort=desc https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS... It should also be pointed to the fact that all the European states didn't decide to introduce the measurements for the sake of it but because their health systems reached the point of being overwhelmed, which for some of European countries would be the second time. In all these countries, the "dilemma" as presented in the article is simply false: all of them first waited hoping that the measurements wouldn't be necessary and introduced them practically as they had no other acceptable choice. The "hard" lockdown first time worked in Italy in the Spring, allowing for very low case count during the Summer there.
pjc50 6y ago
It is absolutely worth questioning which public health measures work, and recognising that they are very costly. However, too many people seem to be blasé about the cost of not having effective public health measures. And many don't seem to have recognised that some countries have brought COVID down to near-zero - and as a result don't need the measures! It's a complex space of risk management.
- gabereiser 6y ago
  Do you think that countries that took proper measures and got COVID down are essentially now the role models for the other half of the world to scorn mask wearing and say “See, everyone is fine, it’s a hoax.”? Like one group justifying themselves because of president of another (even though they are comparing apples to oranges)?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    No, because they're completely independent; there's an entire industry of claiming that stuff is a hoax. Anyone paying attention to those countries will notice that they generally had high rates of mask wearing and generally took it seriously after the previous SARS. Most of the COVID contrarianism is a product of the political system, not of reality.
    - gabereiser 6y ago
      That’s what I mean. Politics using reality reference as a political argument reference. A kin to correlation does not equal causation.
- rriepe 6y ago
  Too much rhetoric takes this format. We're up against a virus, not some sympathizer group of humans. There's no outgroup, no matter how much the news convinces you to hate anti-maskers, lockdown protestors or the infected. These remain people, not enemy combatants. However people seem to you and how you think they should be punished is irrelevant. It's a sickness! But here you are talking about the wrong type of people in the context of a war metaphor. It's completely batshit.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
What's the debate? Does not going to indoor weddings decrease your chance of infection? Yes, obviously. Do masks work? Very likely, yes[1]. Do masks harm? Lol, no. What's the optimal balance between prevention of infection and allowing life/the economy to continue as usual? Hard to say. Is anyone prevented from debating that question? Not according to the ten articles I see on that question every day. Hydroxychloroquine? Now that you're asking, I've a newfound appreciation for the idea of having died, say, 86 seconds ago... That question of trade-offs, by the way, isn't even a question of science any more, but values. So it would be out of scope wrt to this article. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  .
- matz1 6y ago
  >Does not going to indoor weddings decrease your chance of infection? Yes, obviously Sure,but at the same not having indoor weeding also has its disadvantages. The question is, is it worth the risk of going to indoor weeding? At least for me its obviously yes. >Do masks work? the article pointed out research paper that says there is no strong evidence that mask help. >Do masks harm? For some, yes, for start it can be uncomfortable to wear, it can even be more uncomfortable when exercising or in hot weather. Not to mention you lose clue from people facial expressions.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    I understand, you've made up your mind; I think I had discussion with you previously, but I will still leave some comments. First of all, we still do not learn much about long-term consequences of COVID infection among less vulnerable population, there is a growing list of documented complications of even mild cases of COVID, so I do not think there is anything obvious in measuring the risk, even if you think otherwise. Secondly, evidence for mask significantly outnumber contrary papers, and it is some kind of cherry picking to fish for the single papers claiming the opposite. Thirdly, risk of you going to the wedding includes the risk of the spread of infection to people you contact with, among them your elder relatives. And the argument about the inconvenience and facial expressions - well, I do not know who would buy that.
mturmon 6y ago
Note: This is an opinion article, and is definitely not a properly-contextualized roundup article on the topic. Noting this clarifies some omissions from the narrative in the article -- e.g., the Sweden "success" is definitely mixed [1], and the US administration's messaging has been deliberately anti-science. [1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6513/159 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6513/159
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  It's frustrating that every time I want to see other points of view on better possible paths to deal with the pandemic, it's almost always a political hack. This is the real problem. Both sides just want to push their narrative. No one wants to accept basic facts and find common ground to solve problems. I don't know what the solution is.
VikingCoder 6y ago
"Only by entertaining a broader, scientifically informed view of what might work will the next phase of COVID-19 control be acceptable to a deeply divided public." Sorry, but that's a claim without evidence - that the public might accept the next phase of COVID-19 control.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Exactly this. The problem of the public being deeply divided on this topic isn't a problem with the topic or the science surrounding it, the causation goes the other direction. Deeply divided public is deeply divided on every issue, it all becomes a proxy for political ideology.
ashton314 6y ago
Good science should be open to new ideas. I'm totally on board with mask wearing, social distancing, isolating when possible, etc. etc., but always keeping in mind the possibility that we could be wrong is a crucial factor in coming to objective truth through empirical means. Reminds me of this blog post I read a while back: http://scott.wiersdorf.org/blarney/science http://scott.wiersdorf.org/blarney/science It's hard to disagree cordially and constructively when you perceive the "other side" as being uninformed, unenlightened, rude, or careless. We're really good at furnishing examples of such people which we generalize to represent the entire opposition. I try and get over this by thinking what values other people have that might lead them to the conclusions that they do. I also try and think about what factors led them to the sets of information that they're working with. That has two effects: 1.) I'm less mad at them (usually), and 2.) I can understand how to talk to their concerns and worries, rather than just at them. I can't change other people, so I try and change myself. I'm not saying I'm perfect at that—this doesn't always work as well as I'd like. What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others?
- mrandish 6y ago
  > What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others? I try to - Remember virtually no individual or group is 100% right or 100% incorrect about things which require interpretation or value judgements. Even people who I think are often terribly wrong can still occasionally be right about some topic. - Consider sometimes people can reach a generally correct conclusion based on incorrect reasoning, interpretation or data. Conversely, sometimes people can reach substantially incorrect conclusions based on correct reasoning, interpretation or data. - Not to let my feelings about a person or group's other positions influence my assessments about a position in a different domain. - Be aware of the basis and degree of my own preconceived feelings and biases related to a topic. - Remember that everyone is influenced to some degree by their personal experiences, context, knowledge and feelings, even if we're not aware of it. - Ensure I fully understand the other person's position. Especially that I'm not making assumptions or drawing conclusions which may over-simplify, extend or 'extreme' what they're actually saying. I also try to imagine possible 'steelman' forms of their arguments which may be stronger, clearer or more nuanced than what they are saying. - Separate assertions about objective facts from subjective interpretation or conclusions such as policy. Especially that future outcomes cannot be objective facts because they haven't happened. - Apply extra charitable interpretation in areas where I may have strong pre-held notions. - Stay open-minded and ask clarifying questions in a reasonable and neutral tone. - Focus my responses on the most key elements of the arguments actually being made versus the person, style, tone or my feelings.
fabian2k 6y ago
There is a lot unknown about the effects of various measures used to contain COVID-19. But the consequences of doing nothing are reasonably well known. We know the death rate by age well enough, we can suspect that there are significant long-term effects in survivors even if we don't know the full extent. We also know that reducing contacts reduces the transmission of diseases like COVID-19. We might have no hard data on how well each measure works, but we know that reducing contacts does work in general. The part I find problematic are the very generic "just protect the vulnerable populations" calls. I mean that would be a great solution for a virus with this kind of strong age dependency in lethality. But I still have no idea at all how we are supposed to protect the vulnerable populations while the virus is spreading among everyone else. For me this is just a slogan, not a real solution. I don't see how it could be possible to let the virus surge in a large part of the population while still reliably isolating everyone above 60 or so. I honestly don't see any way this can work at all, so I'm entirely baffled by this line of argument.
- collyw 6y ago
  > But the consequences of doing nothing are reasonably well known. What do you think happens if we do nothing? Seeing that Sweden's cases didn't spiral out of control as initially expected I am sceptical about how much use lockdowns actually are.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    I think its worth looking at US cases for what happens when you do nothing, as Sweden had (non-mandatory) but strongly recommended restrictions since March.
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      How so? The US hasn't done nothing. Are there countries that have actually had zero response at a national or provincial level to COVID that we can look at?
      - 6y ago
jariel 6y ago
Wow. Public Policy and Academic Discussions are not the same thing. If you tell 100M people to change their lives dramatically, there's a 100% chance death threats will be involved. There are always naysaysers. We got death threats when seatbelts were legally enforced. That's not to say public policy is always correct. But what we talk about in inner circles, what we publish ... should be open. We shouldn't be oppressing such-and-such periodical because they say this or that. Unfortunately, publications do make their way into the headlines as Fox and CNN pluck, selectively from the stack and misrepresent findings to suit their narrative. Which may in fact point at the real problem ... making better firewalls between 'serious discussion' and 'public communications'. Scientists don't like being misrepresented either.
fastball 6y ago
My question is mostly just "how do we draw the line in the sand?" The fact is that if mask-wearing and lockdowns prevent the spread of this virus, they'll work for the flu too. If there is a moral imperative to use these methods for COVID, why would there not also be a moral imperative to use them for the flu? Where do you draw the line?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  The line has been drawn, historically, at somewhere between a "normal" flu and the Spanish Flu of 1918. And that matters, because it sets the default on what people are inclined to accept.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    The line is drawn based on hospital capacity. We have enough capacity for flu, because of immunity and vaccinations. We don't have enough for Covid.
- ibrarmalik 6y ago
  If you have the flu you should wear a mask. We are enforcing mask-wearing and doing lockdowns because of COVID asymptomatic infections, these methods don't make much sense for the flu.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Many influenza cases are asymptomatic, and they can transmit the virus. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2005/cbnreport_103105.html https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2005/cbnreport_1...
  - collyw 6y ago
    > We are enforcing mask-wearing and doing lockdowns because of COVID asymptomatic infections, We are doing these so that politicians can be seen to be "doing something". Not because there is any evidence that they work or are effective
- 6y ago
raptorraver 6y ago
I ran into this online couple days ago and was really surprised that (according to this sites collection at least) there seems to be stronger evidence for masks not being effective for stopping spread of COVID: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/ https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/ EDIT: I see downvotes and that's okay I guess, but I'm not any kind of medical or scientific expert so I'd rather hear why you think this list is wrong. For me it looks like a comprehensive list of research about the topic.
- mikexstudios 6y ago
  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/ for analysis. It's a strange site where they mix both facts and misinformation.
nromiun 6y ago
The main problem these days is that people will say anything they want in the name of science and if you even dare to express the slightest doubt you will be called a science denier. It's like science has become a religion and you aren't allowed to express doubt, no matter how contradictory some of those positions may be. Scientific discussion is tolerated, but only if they agree with these viewpoints. If they don't they get "fact-checked" and removed from the internet as soon as possible. Also, it is pretty ironic how Scientific American is crying about science getting less evidence based and more politically motivated. I don't remember them staying out of politics in the last American election.
- ImaCake 6y ago
  It's hard to fault a scientist first publication for coming out against a firmly anti-scientist political party. As someone who does science day to day, I have had no issue discussing contentious scientific ideas with other scientists. I also know plenty of scientists that hold views that others would think go again science; religious fundamentalism not the least of these. I have found scientists to be very tolerant of people holding ideas that are not gained from evidence.
  - makomk 6y ago
    As I recall, their anti-Trump article relied on claims about Covid and the global response to it that were both very obviously untrue and being pushed by the mainstream media as indisputable scientifc fact that was beyond debate for, in part at least, partisan political reasons. It was an example of almost exactly what this article decries.
  - nromiun 6y ago
    I have also found scientists to be very tolerant. But I was not talking about the scientists, I was talking about the platforms where scientists talk. Science magazines (like this one), social media and (more broadly) the internet. More often than not the ones doing the censorship are not scientists. They are usually employees and these so called fact checkers. It doesn't matter how good your argument is when a fact checker can declare your argument false based on a pedantic mistake. The rest will see the fact check and just accept it. Or in some cases they will simply delete it. Also, how does one become anti-science in your opinion? Does questioning contradictory orders now means anti-science? Like how masks didn't work at the start of the pandemic but now even a kerchief will work? Millions of people protesting in the streets don't spread coronavirus but ten people indoors is a hotspot? I don't know about you but my teachers taught me questioning everything is an integral part of science.
pelasaco 6y ago
Somehow that's an answer for this article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179416
jeffrallen 6y ago
All extremism is bad. Even this comment.
georgewfraser 6y ago
The thing that has really surprised me is that public health officials are expressing so much confidence that masks work, despite the evidence being quite meh [1]. There have been many attempts to demonstrate that masks prevent transmission of flu and overall the results are weak/negative. The focus on masks has trade offs. People have finite attention, so the focus on masks diminishes the attention we apply to other interventions. [1] https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/covid-wwksf/what-we-know-public-masks-apr-7-2020.pdf?la=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/co...
- DanBC 6y ago
  People should wear masks; masks may help. The real problem with scientists being overly optimistic about masks is that it causes some people to think they don't need to take any other measures - all the need to do is put a mask on. We see people saying that we should reopen pubs or churches (both places with serious risk of spreading covid) because we can get people to wear a mask.
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
The author seems unaware that covid isn't science. It's politics. >Advocates on both sides have dug in, hurling dismissive and vitriolic attacks at individuals in the other camp. In other words politics. Only in politics are your opponents uninformed, unenlightened, rude, and careless. If we create a venn diagram of science fields and politics fields. The only place in science where we call the science deniers or call for censorship is where politics get involved. Now that you know it's politics and not science. Evaluate the goal. Evaluate which politics is behind it. Weird I keep hearing about a great reset. For example, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/france-thousands-of-protesters-wrongly-punished-under-draconian-laws-in-pre-and-post-covid19-crackdown/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/france-thousa... Why France has made it illegal for you to leave your home and police can enter and search your home at any time.
kelchm 6y ago
This is tangential, but I came across an interesting paper from 2012 on the usage of face masks in Japan. I had preconceived notions that the prevalence of mask use in Japan was solely driven by collectivist culture. If nothing else, this was a good reminder that even groups that appear to be homogenous to an outside observer have diversity in their views. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01466.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9566...

104 points by johntfella 6y ago

The article is creating a 'debate' while completely missing out on the third and better option of getting rid of the virus as much as possible (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, ...)

faitswulff 6y ago
This kind of "both sides" journalism is incredibly wishy washy and is, itself, political. Sweden, the model for the "Great Barrington Declaration" has failed to control the virus and has proven that you cannot both allow unchecked spread in the general population: > Sweden has admitted its coronavirus immunity predictions were wrong as cases soar across the country https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-herd-immunity-second-wave-coronavirus-cases-hospitalisations-surge-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-herd-immunity-second-... As for the article's dire warnings about downstream (presumably economic) impacts, my friends in many of the countries you named are able to go out and enjoy a night on the town, albeit in masks. I expect many of these economies to recover much faster than America.

justicezyx 6y ago

> As people are thrown out of work as a direct result of lockdowns, and as more and more families find themselves unable to cover their rent or food, there have been sharp increases in domestic violence, homelessness and illegal drug use. This line of thoughts is quite puzzling to me. Domestic violence, drug uses are independent issues should be fixed by themselves. In face of grave danger, there is always a balance to make, and usually their danger is so high that it usually has a overriding effect. This type of balance is not unique to covid, it literally happens everywhere all the time.

nradov 6y ago
That is unrealistic. Domestic violence and drug abuse have been problems since the dawn of time. We should take steps to minimize them but they will never be fixed.
throwaway201103 6y ago
The disagreement fundamentally is about whether there is grave danger.

zyxzevn 6y ago

Science was the first victim of covid-1984.

dang 6y ago
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Threads are sensitive to initial conditions, so it's particularly important not to damage a fresh thread by dumping comments like this into its ecosystem. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
mc32 6y ago
Agreed. Skepticism both healthy and fringe were both equally purged from much of mainstream online discussion, sadly.

umvi 6y ago

> In today’s COVID-19 wars, the global scientific divide leans heavily in favor of active, and sometimes even draconian, public health interventions, including widespread locking down of nonessential business, mandating masks, restricting travel and imposing quarantines. On the other side, some doctors, scientists and public health officials are questioning the wisdom of this approach in the face of massive unknowns about their efficacy and in light of the clear and growing evidence that such measures may not be working in some cases, and may also be causing net harm. It's very hard to dissent against the current narrative because any dissent can easily be framed as "killing people". I blame technology for our current predicament. If we didn't have computers and a global internet, there's no way we would be shutting down everything. We might be wearing masks and washing hands, but I would bet life would be largely the same. But because technology dangled the carrot of "we can save lives by doing everything virtually with computers" we are charging down that path optimizing for lives saved without giving fair consideration to other side effects of that (loneliness, depression, suicide, homelessness, civil unrest, economy). In some ways, taking a one time "excess deaths" hit as we have done with past pandemics does have measurable benefits in other ways, but you'll get shouted out of the room if you bring up that position even as a hypothetical.

bharam 6y ago
> we are charging down that path optimizing for lives saved without giving fair consideration to other side effects This reminds me of the French economist Frederic Bastiat's essay "That which is seen, and that which is not seen". The media (tv, newspapers and internet) were all hyper-focused on the number of deaths (initially) and later number of cases but always failed to take into account secondary consequences like those you mention. Link to Bastiat's essay: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/T...
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  Literally every media outlet I have encountered has published extensive coverage of the wider economic, health, social and political impact of the virus itself and the response to it.

jjgreen 6y ago

It is interesting to note that Thomas Lars Benfield's Danish mask study, whose empirical results are at odds with the "majoritarian view" mentioned in the article, has yet to be reported by the BBC.

nojito 6y ago
Because there are actual peer-reviewed studies about mask use and COVID. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-3003_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-3003_article https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6947e2-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6947e2-H.pdf
- jjgreen 6y ago
  Benfield's study has been peer-reviewed and published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
  - acqq 6y ago
    As Anthony Fauci already pointed, one study can be both peer reviewed and be wrong.
    - acqq 6y ago
      I refer to July 31, 2020: https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-shoots-down-flawed-hydroxychloroquine-183931215.html https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-shoots-down-flawed-hydroxychlor... Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.): "it was peer reviewed" Fauci: "It doesn't matter. You can peer review something that's a bad study."
  - liversage 6y ago
    And the conclusion was that based on the data they were not able to determine if face masks protects you from infection or not. For some reason this has led to media concluding that face masks do not protect you but that's not the same. Another important effect of wearing a face mask is that it may protect other people from being infected by you but that effect was not part of the study.

acqq 6y ago

In this case, reading first the end of the page helps understanding the position of the authors: "Clarification added after publication: the authors have collaborated in the past with both John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad, who are discussed in this essay and in the accompanying sidebar." There is also obvious bias in the content of the article, which I guess is explainable by being an "opinion" where I guess the authors can't be told by the editors to change the content with the goal of reducing the bias -- I guess by definition they are expected to be "opinionated." The article is written in the tone of questioning if the government mandated measures work at all and published exactly as we can observe the measures explicitly working across Europe, sinking the numbers of the registered cases: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-07-29..latest&country=GBR~DEU~FRA~CZE~ITA&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=total_cases&pickerSort=desc https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS... It should also be pointed to the fact that all the European states didn't decide to introduce the measurements for the sake of it but because their health systems reached the point of being overwhelmed, which for some of European countries would be the second time. In all these countries, the "dilemma" as presented in the article is simply false: all of them first waited hoping that the measurements wouldn't be necessary and introduced them practically as they had no other acceptable choice. The "hard" lockdown first time worked in Italy in the Spring, allowing for very low case count during the Summer there.

pjc50 6y ago

It is absolutely worth questioning which public health measures work, and recognising that they are very costly. However, too many people seem to be blasé about the cost of not having effective public health measures. And many don't seem to have recognised that some countries have brought COVID down to near-zero - and as a result don't need the measures! It's a complex space of risk management.

gabereiser 6y ago
Do you think that countries that took proper measures and got COVID down are essentially now the role models for the other half of the world to scorn mask wearing and say “See, everyone is fine, it’s a hoax.”? Like one group justifying themselves because of president of another (even though they are comparing apples to oranges)?
- pjc50 6y ago
  No, because they're completely independent; there's an entire industry of claiming that stuff is a hoax. Anyone paying attention to those countries will notice that they generally had high rates of mask wearing and generally took it seriously after the previous SARS. Most of the COVID contrarianism is a product of the political system, not of reality.
  - gabereiser 6y ago
    That’s what I mean. Politics using reality reference as a political argument reference. A kin to correlation does not equal causation.
rriepe 6y ago
Too much rhetoric takes this format. We're up against a virus, not some sympathizer group of humans. There's no outgroup, no matter how much the news convinces you to hate anti-maskers, lockdown protestors or the infected. These remain people, not enemy combatants. However people seem to you and how you think they should be punished is irrelevant. It's a sickness! But here you are talking about the wrong type of people in the context of a war metaphor. It's completely batshit.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

What's the debate? Does not going to indoor weddings decrease your chance of infection? Yes, obviously. Do masks work? Very likely, yes[1]. Do masks harm? Lol, no. What's the optimal balance between prevention of infection and allowing life/the economy to continue as usual? Hard to say. Is anyone prevented from debating that question? Not according to the ten articles I see on that question every day. Hydroxychloroquine? Now that you're asking, I've a newfound appreciation for the idea of having died, say, 86 seconds ago... That question of trade-offs, by the way, isn't even a question of science any more, but values. So it would be out of scope wrt to this article. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

forgotmypw17 6y ago
.
matz1 6y ago
>Does not going to indoor weddings decrease your chance of infection? Yes, obviously Sure,but at the same not having indoor weeding also has its disadvantages. The question is, is it worth the risk of going to indoor weeding? At least for me its obviously yes. >Do masks work? the article pointed out research paper that says there is no strong evidence that mask help. >Do masks harm? For some, yes, for start it can be uncomfortable to wear, it can even be more uncomfortable when exercising or in hot weather. Not to mention you lose clue from people facial expressions.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  I understand, you've made up your mind; I think I had discussion with you previously, but I will still leave some comments. First of all, we still do not learn much about long-term consequences of COVID infection among less vulnerable population, there is a growing list of documented complications of even mild cases of COVID, so I do not think there is anything obvious in measuring the risk, even if you think otherwise. Secondly, evidence for mask significantly outnumber contrary papers, and it is some kind of cherry picking to fish for the single papers claiming the opposite. Thirdly, risk of you going to the wedding includes the risk of the spread of infection to people you contact with, among them your elder relatives. And the argument about the inconvenience and facial expressions - well, I do not know who would buy that.

mturmon 6y ago

Note: This is an opinion article, and is definitely not a properly-contextualized roundup article on the topic. Noting this clarifies some omissions from the narrative in the article -- e.g., the Sweden "success" is definitely mixed [1], and the US administration's messaging has been deliberately anti-science. [1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6513/159 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6513/159

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
It's frustrating that every time I want to see other points of view on better possible paths to deal with the pandemic, it's almost always a political hack. This is the real problem. Both sides just want to push their narrative. No one wants to accept basic facts and find common ground to solve problems. I don't know what the solution is.

VikingCoder 6y ago

"Only by entertaining a broader, scientifically informed view of what might work will the next phase of COVID-19 control be acceptable to a deeply divided public." Sorry, but that's a claim without evidence - that the public might accept the next phase of COVID-19 control.

rootusrootus 6y ago
Exactly this. The problem of the public being deeply divided on this topic isn't a problem with the topic or the science surrounding it, the causation goes the other direction. Deeply divided public is deeply divided on every issue, it all becomes a proxy for political ideology.

ashton314 6y ago

Good science should be open to new ideas. I'm totally on board with mask wearing, social distancing, isolating when possible, etc. etc., but always keeping in mind the possibility that we could be wrong is a crucial factor in coming to objective truth through empirical means. Reminds me of this blog post I read a while back: http://scott.wiersdorf.org/blarney/science http://scott.wiersdorf.org/blarney/science It's hard to disagree cordially and constructively when you perceive the "other side" as being uninformed, unenlightened, rude, or careless. We're really good at furnishing examples of such people which we generalize to represent the entire opposition. I try and get over this by thinking what values other people have that might lead them to the conclusions that they do. I also try and think about what factors led them to the sets of information that they're working with. That has two effects: 1.) I'm less mad at them (usually), and 2.) I can understand how to talk to their concerns and worries, rather than just at them. I can't change other people, so I try and change myself. I'm not saying I'm perfect at that—this doesn't always work as well as I'd like. What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others?

mrandish 6y ago
> What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others? I try to - Remember virtually no individual or group is 100% right or 100% incorrect about things which require interpretation or value judgements. Even people who I think are often terribly wrong can still occasionally be right about some topic. - Consider sometimes people can reach a generally correct conclusion based on incorrect reasoning, interpretation or data. Conversely, sometimes people can reach substantially incorrect conclusions based on correct reasoning, interpretation or data. - Not to let my feelings about a person or group's other positions influence my assessments about a position in a different domain. - Be aware of the basis and degree of my own preconceived feelings and biases related to a topic. - Remember that everyone is influenced to some degree by their personal experiences, context, knowledge and feelings, even if we're not aware of it. - Ensure I fully understand the other person's position. Especially that I'm not making assumptions or drawing conclusions which may over-simplify, extend or 'extreme' what they're actually saying. I also try to imagine possible 'steelman' forms of their arguments which may be stronger, clearer or more nuanced than what they are saying. - Separate assertions about objective facts from subjective interpretation or conclusions such as policy. Especially that future outcomes cannot be objective facts because they haven't happened. - Apply extra charitable interpretation in areas where I may have strong pre-held notions. - Stay open-minded and ask clarifying questions in a reasonable and neutral tone. - Focus my responses on the most key elements of the arguments actually being made versus the person, style, tone or my feelings.

fabian2k 6y ago

There is a lot unknown about the effects of various measures used to contain COVID-19. But the consequences of doing nothing are reasonably well known. We know the death rate by age well enough, we can suspect that there are significant long-term effects in survivors even if we don't know the full extent. We also know that reducing contacts reduces the transmission of diseases like COVID-19. We might have no hard data on how well each measure works, but we know that reducing contacts does work in general. The part I find problematic are the very generic "just protect the vulnerable populations" calls. I mean that would be a great solution for a virus with this kind of strong age dependency in lethality. But I still have no idea at all how we are supposed to protect the vulnerable populations while the virus is spreading among everyone else. For me this is just a slogan, not a real solution. I don't see how it could be possible to let the virus surge in a large part of the population while still reliably isolating everyone above 60 or so. I honestly don't see any way this can work at all, so I'm entirely baffled by this line of argument.

collyw 6y ago
> But the consequences of doing nothing are reasonably well known. What do you think happens if we do nothing? Seeing that Sweden's cases didn't spiral out of control as initially expected I am sceptical about how much use lockdowns actually are.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  I think its worth looking at US cases for what happens when you do nothing, as Sweden had (non-mandatory) but strongly recommended restrictions since March.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    How so? The US hasn't done nothing. Are there countries that have actually had zero response at a national or provincial level to COVID that we can look at?
    - 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

Wow. Public Policy and Academic Discussions are not the same thing. If you tell 100M people to change their lives dramatically, there's a 100% chance death threats will be involved. There are always naysaysers. We got death threats when seatbelts were legally enforced. That's not to say public policy is always correct. But what we talk about in inner circles, what we publish ... should be open. We shouldn't be oppressing such-and-such periodical because they say this or that. Unfortunately, publications do make their way into the headlines as Fox and CNN pluck, selectively from the stack and misrepresent findings to suit their narrative. Which may in fact point at the real problem ... making better firewalls between 'serious discussion' and 'public communications'. Scientists don't like being misrepresented either.

fastball 6y ago

My question is mostly just "how do we draw the line in the sand?" The fact is that if mask-wearing and lockdowns prevent the spread of this virus, they'll work for the flu too. If there is a moral imperative to use these methods for COVID, why would there not also be a moral imperative to use them for the flu? Where do you draw the line?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The line has been drawn, historically, at somewhere between a "normal" flu and the Spanish Flu of 1918. And that matters, because it sets the default on what people are inclined to accept.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  The line is drawn based on hospital capacity. We have enough capacity for flu, because of immunity and vaccinations. We don't have enough for Covid.
ibrarmalik 6y ago
If you have the flu you should wear a mask. We are enforcing mask-wearing and doing lockdowns because of COVID asymptomatic infections, these methods don't make much sense for the flu.
- nradov 6y ago
  Many influenza cases are asymptomatic, and they can transmit the virus. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2005/cbnreport_103105.html https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2005/cbnreport_1...
- collyw 6y ago
  > We are enforcing mask-wearing and doing lockdowns because of COVID asymptomatic infections, We are doing these so that politicians can be seen to be "doing something". Not because there is any evidence that they work or are effective
6y ago

raptorraver 6y ago

I ran into this online couple days ago and was really surprised that (according to this sites collection at least) there seems to be stronger evidence for masks not being effective for stopping spread of COVID: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/ https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/ EDIT: I see downvotes and that's okay I guess, but I'm not any kind of medical or scientific expert so I'd rather hear why you think this list is wrong. For me it looks like a comprehensive list of research about the topic.

mikexstudios 6y ago
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/ for analysis. It's a strange site where they mix both facts and misinformation.

nromiun 6y ago

The main problem these days is that people will say anything they want in the name of science and if you even dare to express the slightest doubt you will be called a science denier. It's like science has become a religion and you aren't allowed to express doubt, no matter how contradictory some of those positions may be. Scientific discussion is tolerated, but only if they agree with these viewpoints. If they don't they get "fact-checked" and removed from the internet as soon as possible. Also, it is pretty ironic how Scientific American is crying about science getting less evidence based and more politically motivated. I don't remember them staying out of politics in the last American election.

ImaCake 6y ago
It's hard to fault a scientist first publication for coming out against a firmly anti-scientist political party. As someone who does science day to day, I have had no issue discussing contentious scientific ideas with other scientists. I also know plenty of scientists that hold views that others would think go again science; religious fundamentalism not the least of these. I have found scientists to be very tolerant of people holding ideas that are not gained from evidence.
- makomk 6y ago
  As I recall, their anti-Trump article relied on claims about Covid and the global response to it that were both very obviously untrue and being pushed by the mainstream media as indisputable scientifc fact that was beyond debate for, in part at least, partisan political reasons. It was an example of almost exactly what this article decries.
- nromiun 6y ago
  I have also found scientists to be very tolerant. But I was not talking about the scientists, I was talking about the platforms where scientists talk. Science magazines (like this one), social media and (more broadly) the internet. More often than not the ones doing the censorship are not scientists. They are usually employees and these so called fact checkers. It doesn't matter how good your argument is when a fact checker can declare your argument false based on a pedantic mistake. The rest will see the fact check and just accept it. Or in some cases they will simply delete it. Also, how does one become anti-science in your opinion? Does questioning contradictory orders now means anti-science? Like how masks didn't work at the start of the pandemic but now even a kerchief will work? Millions of people protesting in the streets don't spread coronavirus but ten people indoors is a hotspot? I don't know about you but my teachers taught me questioning everything is an integral part of science.

pelasaco 6y ago

Somehow that's an answer for this article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179416

jeffrallen 6y ago

All extremism is bad. Even this comment.

georgewfraser 6y ago

The thing that has really surprised me is that public health officials are expressing so much confidence that masks work, despite the evidence being quite meh [1]. There have been many attempts to demonstrate that masks prevent transmission of flu and overall the results are weak/negative. The focus on masks has trade offs. People have finite attention, so the focus on masks diminishes the attention we apply to other interventions. [1] https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/covid-wwksf/what-we-know-public-masks-apr-7-2020.pdf?la=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/co...

DanBC 6y ago
People should wear masks; masks may help. The real problem with scientists being overly optimistic about masks is that it causes some people to think they don't need to take any other measures - all the need to do is put a mask on. We see people saying that we should reopen pubs or churches (both places with serious risk of spreading covid) because we can get people to wear a mask.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

The author seems unaware that covid isn't science. It's politics. >Advocates on both sides have dug in, hurling dismissive and vitriolic attacks at individuals in the other camp. In other words politics. Only in politics are your opponents uninformed, unenlightened, rude, and careless. If we create a venn diagram of science fields and politics fields. The only place in science where we call the science deniers or call for censorship is where politics get involved. Now that you know it's politics and not science. Evaluate the goal. Evaluate which politics is behind it. Weird I keep hearing about a great reset. For example, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/france-thousands-of-protesters-wrongly-punished-under-draconian-laws-in-pre-and-post-covid19-crackdown/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/france-thousa... Why France has made it illegal for you to leave your home and police can enter and search your home at any time.

kelchm 6y ago

This is tangential, but I came across an interesting paper from 2012 on the usage of face masks in Japan. I had preconceived notions that the prevalence of mask use in Japan was solely driven by collectivist culture. If nothing else, this was a good reminder that even groups that appear to be homogenous to an outside observer have diversity in their views. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01466.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9566...