5 ms·

The response to her actions seem to be overkill. With that said, what she is accused of doing is illegal (especially downloading PII from the government). Also

The response to her actions seem to be overkill. With that said, what she is accused of doing is illegal (especially downloading PII from the government). Also, she is reaching far beyond her grasp. And sensationalizing quite a bit. I am sure she is intelligent and competent in her role, but that role is not that of an epidemiologist, data scientist or public policy expert. Why does this matter? Well, focusing mainly on the public policy, nothing is cut and dry. Understanding how semi-dependent systems work together is incredibly complex. She is so heavily focused on COVID that she lacks the insight into all of the competing forces that make up a society. And yes, getting those forces wrong will also cost lives. Finally, her dramatization of the number of deaths implies (as many people imply) that any actions (that are not blatantly unconstitutional) could appreciably decrease deaths. Outside of the island nations and China, deaths have a weak correlation with public policy. More suggestive correlations exist for population density (cases) and average age (deaths). And yes, there are outliers (Japan is older, Vietnam is denser) but there are even more outliers on the shutdown argument. The reason this is myopic focus on lockdowns is dangerous is that if undermines the effective mitigation efforts that can help without ruining society. As soon as any leader attempts to ease anything you have the pearl-clutching "give me lockdown or give grandma death" crowd sensationally crying foul. Our ability for reasoned disagreement was a dead horse years ago, but Covid continues to beat it senseless.

pbourke 6y ago
> Outside of the island nations and China, deaths have a weak correlation with public policy. South Korea, Vietnam, Finland, Norway and Thailand are not island nations and yet have a rate of death an order of magnitude lower than the US.
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  South Korea is basically an island. Their only border is an impregnable military zone. Norway and Finland speak more to density than their geography. But yeah, we need to learn what was different in Vietnam and Thailand. Vietnam is especially interesting, but it could be easily argued that one of their tools is unavailable here (forced detention at camps for the infected)
  - pbourke 6y ago
    Chalking anything up to geography or density seems like a reach. Ireland and the UK are islands and are doing rather poorly. South Korea has high density. Canada has low density, but a highly urbanized population. It’s done better than the US which has similar urbanization but worse than the nations that I mentioned earlier.
    - salmon30salmon 6y ago
      Right it's pretty fucking willy-nilly no matter the conditions you are testing for correlation. The nations you mentioned all had pretty different public responses as well. That is why I think it's dangerous to proclaim lockdowns are a panacea because with a few exceptions you end up with similar results but a fucked economy
      - pksebben 6y ago
        how is that more dangerous than avoiding a lockdown claiming that public policy doesn't matter? In what ways is the economy killing people right now?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It's dangerous because poorly executed lockdowns can be counterproductive. New cases are currently higher in many locked-down states than they are in Florida - this is of course a multifactorial process, but part of the story has to be that people have stopped complying with the lockdowns.
        salmon30salmon 6y ago
        Suicides are way up. So are overdoses. But the real tragedy is the lack of support for third world countries due to the contraction of the global economy. Millions will die due to a reduction in vaccines and treatable illnesses in the developing world. Millions. But it seems we are okay with that as long as _we_ don't get covid
    - 6y ago
TameAntelope 6y ago
I'm confused -- what did she do that "reached beyond her grasp" or "dramatized" the number of COVID-19 deaths in Florida? Edit: You're all over this comment thread, what relationship do you have to this story, if any?
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  The message sent via emergency comms was quite dramatic. Her insistence that the numbers were being cooked with malice to justify reopening is also attributing to conspiracy that which could be explained by differing opinions on how to clean up messy data (if someone tested positive on vacation, will they count in their home state or Florida?)
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    She was told to turn an 18% to a 10% so more counties would appear ready to reopen, according to the article linked within this one. I may need some help understanding how that's a "differing opinion" about how to clean up data.
    - salmon30salmon 6y ago
      To me that doesn't pass the smell test. In my state, they've just changed the thresholds. "New science is showing XYZ so in response counties can now eat at restaurants if their shits under 20"
      - esoterae 6y ago
        Changing a threshold is not changing the underlying data. One is attempting to be rational and iterate through policy, and the other is lying. Edit: Just to be explicit, yes I'm calling out the false equivalence as a logical fallacy.
        salmon30salmon 6y ago
        Right no shit. What I'm arguing is that people take the path of least resistance and it would have been far easier to announce a policy change than cook the books. I am saying that if opening up was the only reason, I do not believe that's the path they would take. Of course I'm just basing this off of my own feels.
monadic3 6y ago
> The response to her actions seem to be overkill. Not for an authoritarian! > effective mitigation efforts I'd like to see you spell out what these are and how her efforts are harming them rather than, you know, being shitty attempts in the first place that no reasonable person would have thought would work. > her dramatization of the number of deaths implies (as many people imply) that any actions (that are not blatantly unconstitutional) could appreciably decrease deaths Not any efforts, but this is an effective way to point out that the current efforts aren't working as well as virtually any other part of the world is able to do. I'd imagine copying the efforts from those parts of the world would be a reasonable thing to do. She's a national hero and a journalist. I certainly don't see a way to exploit her to my own ends, and her ends are in the public good.

pbourke 6y ago

> Outside of the island nations and China, deaths have a weak correlation with public policy. South Korea, Vietnam, Finland, Norway and Thailand are not island nations and yet have a rate of death an order of magnitude lower than the US.

salmon30salmon 6y ago
South Korea is basically an island. Their only border is an impregnable military zone. Norway and Finland speak more to density than their geography. But yeah, we need to learn what was different in Vietnam and Thailand. Vietnam is especially interesting, but it could be easily argued that one of their tools is unavailable here (forced detention at camps for the infected)
- pbourke 6y ago
  Chalking anything up to geography or density seems like a reach. Ireland and the UK are islands and are doing rather poorly. South Korea has high density. Canada has low density, but a highly urbanized population. It’s done better than the US which has similar urbanization but worse than the nations that I mentioned earlier.
  - salmon30salmon 6y ago
    Right it's pretty fucking willy-nilly no matter the conditions you are testing for correlation. The nations you mentioned all had pretty different public responses as well. That is why I think it's dangerous to proclaim lockdowns are a panacea because with a few exceptions you end up with similar results but a fucked economy
    - pksebben 6y ago
      how is that more dangerous than avoiding a lockdown claiming that public policy doesn't matter? In what ways is the economy killing people right now?
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It's dangerous because poorly executed lockdowns can be counterproductive. New cases are currently higher in many locked-down states than they are in Florida - this is of course a multifactorial process, but part of the story has to be that people have stopped complying with the lockdowns.
      - salmon30salmon 6y ago
        Suicides are way up. So are overdoses. But the real tragedy is the lack of support for third world countries due to the contraction of the global economy. Millions will die due to a reduction in vaccines and treatable illnesses in the developing world. Millions. But it seems we are okay with that as long as _we_ don't get covid
  - 6y ago

TameAntelope 6y ago

I'm confused -- what did she do that "reached beyond her grasp" or "dramatized" the number of COVID-19 deaths in Florida? Edit: You're all over this comment thread, what relationship do you have to this story, if any?

salmon30salmon 6y ago
The message sent via emergency comms was quite dramatic. Her insistence that the numbers were being cooked with malice to justify reopening is also attributing to conspiracy that which could be explained by differing opinions on how to clean up messy data (if someone tested positive on vacation, will they count in their home state or Florida?)
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  She was told to turn an 18% to a 10% so more counties would appear ready to reopen, according to the article linked within this one. I may need some help understanding how that's a "differing opinion" about how to clean up data.
  - salmon30salmon 6y ago
    To me that doesn't pass the smell test. In my state, they've just changed the thresholds. "New science is showing XYZ so in response counties can now eat at restaurants if their shits under 20"
    - esoterae 6y ago
      Changing a threshold is not changing the underlying data. One is attempting to be rational and iterate through policy, and the other is lying. Edit: Just to be explicit, yes I'm calling out the false equivalence as a logical fallacy.
      - salmon30salmon 6y ago
        Right no shit. What I'm arguing is that people take the path of least resistance and it would have been far easier to announce a policy change than cook the books. I am saying that if opening up was the only reason, I do not believe that's the path they would take. Of course I'm just basing this off of my own feels.

monadic3 6y ago

> The response to her actions seem to be overkill. Not for an authoritarian! > effective mitigation efforts I'd like to see you spell out what these are and how her efforts are harming them rather than, you know, being shitty attempts in the first place that no reasonable person would have thought would work. > her dramatization of the number of deaths implies (as many people imply) that any actions (that are not blatantly unconstitutional) could appreciably decrease deaths Not any efforts, but this is an effective way to point out that the current efforts aren't working as well as virtually any other part of the world is able to do. I'd imagine copying the efforts from those parts of the world would be a reasonable thing to do. She's a national hero and a journalist. I certainly don't see a way to exploit her to my own ends, and her ends are in the public good.