5 ms·

> but there is no evidence that these mutations Parroting NN Taleb: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't we learned from coronavirus that we

by k0stas 6y ago

> but there is no evidence that these mutations Parroting NN Taleb: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't we learned from coronavirus that we need to use the precautionary principle in the face of new information that is not fully understood. I don't know where you are from, but I locally heard a string of "there is no evidence of" starting in about January of 2019. There was no evidence that the virus would leave China (it did). No evidence that shutting down travel from infected areas would help (see Vietnam). No evidence of community transmission (it has happened in most of the globe). No evidence that masks help prevent transmission (appears to reduce transmission rates). I am starting to think as soon as someone asserts "there is no evidence" for something related to the coronavirus, it is a foregone conclusion. In any case, nobody can assert with absolute certainty that the coronavirus cannot mutate into a more severe or more transmissible virus, especially in the face of a the long human history of being (literally) plagued by mutating viruses. A critical mutation is a possibility and we should be extremely cautious and vigilant against it. Even if we erroneously overreact 10 times to false mutations, the 11th time might be the one the matters. And the cost of those 11 overreactions will be much less than the cost of letting it go wild.

friendlybus 6y ago
Parroting Christopher Hitchens: what is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof Mutations that have a real impact on the RNA of the virus are incredibly rare. Most random mutations and errors replicating don't produce any meaningful change in the virus and you have to get very unlucky for a deadly mutation to happen. We should stick to scientific rationalism even if it has limits. There has been too much opportunistic fear-mongering and questionable decision making playing advantage off the back of a natural virus. This thing obeys the laws of physics, kills people in a particular pattern and can be managed with scientific tools we have had forever. There is simply no need for everybody to be hysterical yet again, when the science of the virus can be so easily spelled out for the masses. But noo, we have to have a boogeyman to build a network of cultural changes. This particular mechanism of hijacking a natural disaster for control is embarrassingly transparent.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > can be managed with scientific tools we have had forever The most important ones aren’t even particularly scientific. If you’re feeling ill, stay home. Wash your hands. Don’t hang around elderly or other vulnerable. But these are simple and require no exceptional growth of state power and usurping of the right of free people to exercise their labor. All these pro-labor types have no problem making scientists, politicians, etc. your effective boss. Rich people deciding they must micromanage their doltish compatriots.
  - jasonlaramburu 6y ago
    And once we isolate these ‘vulnerable and elderly’ people, who will care for them? Robots?
- user-the-name 6y ago
  > Parroting Christopher Hitchens: what is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof This is nonsense that assumes an antagonistic purpose to a discussion, and not actually an attempt to reach a higher understanding.
  - mejutoco 6y ago
    Isn‘t this the burden of proof under a different name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      Is this a thing that is discussed in philosophy, except that Christopher Hitchens recently claimed it to be? A burden of proof applies to law, by convention, but not to the truth of a situation. If I say "513x217=111321", it's true whether I prove it to you or not. My statement of it does not obligate me to prove it.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zaroth 6y ago
What you’re saying boils down to, we should assume that something will happen, and therefore act to deploy our limited resources to defend against this thing, just because it isn’t theoretically impossible. Such an approach is guaranteed to massively fail and in doing so cost a lost of money and lives. It’s bad public policy because it is financially ruinous and leads to a greater number of deaths. Here’s the logic: We know that resources (time, focus, money) can be wasted if they are spent on things that are not effective. We also know that resources are finite. There is only so much time, so much money, and so many different things that you can try to accomplish at once. Therefore, limited resources must be deployed efficiently — towards the most effective interventions — if we want them collectively to achieve the greatest effect. This means dangers that are scientifically exceedingly unlikely to occur should perhaps not be entirely ignored but should not be driving major policy decisions. The issue here is not an absence of evidence. There is an abundance of evidence that coronavirus mutations are fundamentally different from influenza mutations.
root_axis 6y ago
> I am starting to think as soon as someone asserts "there is no evidence" for something related to the coronavirus, it is a foregone conclusion. I know that this is a joke, but it does rhetorically undercut your main point a bit. Hindsight is 2020 and resources are limited, if you let speculation without evidence rule the day you'll be drowning in potential problems, most of which will never materialize. Nobody is saying "just ignore the new strains", they're saying "there is no reason to panic about new strains given the evidence", yes the evidence could change but that can be true of anything; you might wake up tomorrow to find out that new evidence suggests cell phone use increases risk of dementia, but there is no good reason to go around living your life like this might actually be true.
guenthert 6y ago
> In any case, nobody can assert with absolute certainty that the coronavirus cannot mutate into a more severe or more transmissible virus, especially in the face of a the long human history of being (literally) plagued by mutating viruses. Well, the coronavirus won't mutate into Ebola, if that's what you're afraid of. And viri as deadly as Ebola aren't particularly successful as they tend to kill their host before spreading sufficiently (HIV is quite nefarious in that respect and I'd think close to worst case). Humankind is in no danger of extinction from this virus or any other known. The old and infirm need to take precautions, as well as those tending to them. The rest of us have other things to worry about. Stop the fear mongering.
randomsearch 6y ago
Just a note on the precautionary principle: you can only apply it if you’re sure the action you’re taking does not cause harm. An example where this could be the case is enforced community mask wearing - it could introduce new vectors for transmission, for example.
Smaug123 6y ago
Re "there is no evidence": this is due to a mismatch between the medical profession's use of the words "no evidence" and everyone else's. To a standard human, "no evidence" means "there is no evidence". To a medical professional, "no evidence" means "there is insufficient evidence for us to be certain". The clash of terminology is very unfortunate, and it prevents one from discussing probabilities at all. A statement from the WHO is either that something is "certain" or that there is "insufficient evidence at this time", even if there is sufficient evidence for one to conclude something with 80% probability.

by k0stas 6y ago

friendlybus 6y ago

Parroting Christopher Hitchens: what is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof Mutations that have a real impact on the RNA of the virus are incredibly rare. Most random mutations and errors replicating don't produce any meaningful change in the virus and you have to get very unlucky for a deadly mutation to happen. We should stick to scientific rationalism even if it has limits. There has been too much opportunistic fear-mongering and questionable decision making playing advantage off the back of a natural virus. This thing obeys the laws of physics, kills people in a particular pattern and can be managed with scientific tools we have had forever. There is simply no need for everybody to be hysterical yet again, when the science of the virus can be so easily spelled out for the masses. But noo, we have to have a boogeyman to build a network of cultural changes. This particular mechanism of hijacking a natural disaster for control is embarrassingly transparent.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> can be managed with scientific tools we have had forever The most important ones aren’t even particularly scientific. If you’re feeling ill, stay home. Wash your hands. Don’t hang around elderly or other vulnerable. But these are simple and require no exceptional growth of state power and usurping of the right of free people to exercise their labor. All these pro-labor types have no problem making scientists, politicians, etc. your effective boss. Rich people deciding they must micromanage their doltish compatriots.
- jasonlaramburu 6y ago
  And once we isolate these ‘vulnerable and elderly’ people, who will care for them? Robots?
user-the-name 6y ago
> Parroting Christopher Hitchens: what is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof This is nonsense that assumes an antagonistic purpose to a discussion, and not actually an attempt to reach a higher understanding.
- mejutoco 6y ago
  Isn‘t this the burden of proof under a different name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    Is this a thing that is discussed in philosophy, except that Christopher Hitchens recently claimed it to be? A burden of proof applies to law, by convention, but not to the truth of a situation. If I say "513x217=111321", it's true whether I prove it to you or not. My statement of it does not obligate me to prove it.
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zaroth 6y ago

What you’re saying boils down to, we should assume that something will happen, and therefore act to deploy our limited resources to defend against this thing, just because it isn’t theoretically impossible. Such an approach is guaranteed to massively fail and in doing so cost a lost of money and lives. It’s bad public policy because it is financially ruinous and leads to a greater number of deaths. Here’s the logic: We know that resources (time, focus, money) can be wasted if they are spent on things that are not effective. We also know that resources are finite. There is only so much time, so much money, and so many different things that you can try to accomplish at once. Therefore, limited resources must be deployed efficiently — towards the most effective interventions — if we want them collectively to achieve the greatest effect. This means dangers that are scientifically exceedingly unlikely to occur should perhaps not be entirely ignored but should not be driving major policy decisions. The issue here is not an absence of evidence. There is an abundance of evidence that coronavirus mutations are fundamentally different from influenza mutations.

root_axis 6y ago

> I am starting to think as soon as someone asserts "there is no evidence" for something related to the coronavirus, it is a foregone conclusion. I know that this is a joke, but it does rhetorically undercut your main point a bit. Hindsight is 2020 and resources are limited, if you let speculation without evidence rule the day you'll be drowning in potential problems, most of which will never materialize. Nobody is saying "just ignore the new strains", they're saying "there is no reason to panic about new strains given the evidence", yes the evidence could change but that can be true of anything; you might wake up tomorrow to find out that new evidence suggests cell phone use increases risk of dementia, but there is no good reason to go around living your life like this might actually be true.

guenthert 6y ago

> In any case, nobody can assert with absolute certainty that the coronavirus cannot mutate into a more severe or more transmissible virus, especially in the face of a the long human history of being (literally) plagued by mutating viruses. Well, the coronavirus won't mutate into Ebola, if that's what you're afraid of. And viri as deadly as Ebola aren't particularly successful as they tend to kill their host before spreading sufficiently (HIV is quite nefarious in that respect and I'd think close to worst case). Humankind is in no danger of extinction from this virus or any other known. The old and infirm need to take precautions, as well as those tending to them. The rest of us have other things to worry about. Stop the fear mongering.

randomsearch 6y ago

Just a note on the precautionary principle: you can only apply it if you’re sure the action you’re taking does not cause harm. An example where this could be the case is enforced community mask wearing - it could introduce new vectors for transmission, for example.

Smaug123 6y ago

Re "there is no evidence": this is due to a mismatch between the medical profession's use of the words "no evidence" and everyone else's. To a standard human, "no evidence" means "there is no evidence". To a medical professional, "no evidence" means "there is insufficient evidence for us to be certain". The clash of terminology is very unfortunate, and it prevents one from discussing probabilities at all. A statement from the WHO is either that something is "certain" or that there is "insufficient evidence at this time", even if there is sufficient evidence for one to conclude something with 80% probability.