3 ms·
No, they may not be “from the pandemic”, they may be from the actions taken in response to the pandemic. These aren’t the same things.
by ceilingcorner 5y ago
No, they may not be “from the pandemic”, they may be from the actions taken in response to the pandemic. These aren’t the same things.
- detaro 5y agoMatter of perspective I guess. Deaths directly from COVID also depend on the actions taken in response to the pandemic, so in both cases they are (potentially avoidable) consequences of the pandemic and societies reaction to it.
- ceilingcorner 5y agoNo other cause of death is reported this way.
- deregulateMed 5y agoThis is irresponsible. Especially as policy decisions are made from it.
- detaro 5y agoWhat's irresponsible is making policy decisions based on numbers that are clearly not useful for that purpose.
- leereeves 5y ago> consequences of the pandemic and societies reaction to it But which? That's an extremely important distinction because the correct response might be further lockdowns or the exact opposite. Merely knowing there were four million excess deaths, while tragic and important information, is not a useful guide for the response.
- detaro 5y agoOf course it's an extremely important question, if you can get data for it, awesome. Doesn't mean we shouldn't publish other numbers just because they are not useful to answer all questions - this is clearly labelled all-cause mortality estimated on extremely thin data. If you just take any random number you see and base your policy on that without context you'll always have problems.
- leereeves 5y agoWho said we shouldn't publish that data? I agree with you that it should be published, and considered in context. And discussion about the effects of lockdowns on the supply chain is part of that context. The obvious inference many people will jump to is that the deaths are directly due to covid. It's important to remember there are other possible explanations.
- detaro 5y agoAnd all I objected to was the (perceived) claim that the article and existing discussion didn't acknowledge that, or that readers wouldn't be familiar with the idea.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deregulateMed 5y agoI was literally flagged on HN last year from pointing out potential side effects of lockdowns. It was weird being pro science and seeing this turn political. It really showed which of my friends could think scientifically for themselves, and which repeated what authority said.
- ceilingcorner 5y agoHN seems to have gone the way of Reddit, where any skepticism toward lockdowns is treated as conspiracy fringe thinking. I suppose it’s to be expected from a community that can work remotely, but as you said, it is extremely unscientific.
- srean 5y agoPlease don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. From the guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- leereeves 5y agoThe discussion on this topic here is just opinion and speculation, as are the votes. I think of the upvotes and downvotes in a discussion like this as nothing more than a poll of HN readers' opinions.
- BoxOfRain 5y agoI think the difference is between people who see science as a process and people who see science as a priesthood. A true pro-science position is to follow the conclusions from scientific observations wherever they may lead however uncomfortable that may be. Someone who is not pro-science but merely adopting the aesthetic of science will claim "obey the science" as though it's a doctrine rather than simply a tool.
- deregulateMed 5y agoI find that these people don't read studies but rather treat scientists as Science. Scientists are Authority, not science. It was mind boggling how many scientists made this mistake.