3 ms·

> The agency believes the virus continues to pose a low risk to the general public. They buried the lede. This is story about testing people who work in dairy

by timr 2y ago

> The agency believes the virus continues to pose a low risk to the general public. They buried the lede. This is story about testing people who work in dairy farming, and finding out that a small number of people had inconsequential infections. For those who will surely try, you can't just divide 8 (number of infections) by 115 (total population tested) and use that proportion for anything. The error bars are large (specifically, using Fisher's Exact, from 3% to 13%). Edit: while the original Stat title is atrocious clickbait, a truly non-fear-mongering title would be something like "Asymptomatic bird flu infections in a small sample of farm workers"

Fomite 2y ago
While wide, those are not uselessly so. "A low number, but non-zero" isn't great information, but it's a start. Because understanding so-called "inconsequential infections" would have been very helpful at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. "Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through".
- timr 2y ago
  Purely statistically, sure. But you haven't included sample bias -- they did a small sample of farm workers. So at best you have a point estimate with a wide confidence interval that tells you (maybe) what rate of undiscovered infection you might expect to see if you sampled lots of farm workers. > "Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through". Thankfully, the article tells you that human-to-human transmission isn't a concern, so there's no need to speculate.
perihelions 2y ago
("continues to pose a low risk to the general public") I don't agree, and I would point out they used identical language mere weeks before covid-19 exploded [0]. Federal bureaucracies are reactive, not proactive. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-02-26-20-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-... ("Coronavirus risk to American public is low, health secretary says"; February 26, 2020)
- throwup238 2y ago
  Except this flu was first identified in 1996 and there still hasn’t been any large outbreaks in humans, just small pockets of infections among farm workers and their family members. It only took months between the first suspected COVID case and massive lockdowns.
  - perihelions 2y ago
    Well, the outbreak in mammalian livestock is very novel, and enormous in scale. I'm not making any points or claims about the human pandemic risk, because I don't know. My point is a narrow one: that the CDC's current messaging language is low-signal and shouldn't be interpreted heavily.
    - dhosek 2y ago
      Well fortunately for pandemic response, I’m sure that the CDC will be sure to prevent it from spreading and encourage vaccinations. What could possibly go wrong?
  - Fomite 2y ago
    The problem with flu is that with reassortment, and especially with an expansion of the host species, we're basically just making a bunch of saving throws, hoping they're all okay.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - timr 2y ago
    > It only took months between the first suspected COVID case and massive lockdowns. ...and they made exactly the same mistakes of extrapolation from a small sample when they did that. You cannot conclude anything meaningful to the general population from a tiny sample of farmworkers.

by timr 2y ago

Fomite 2y ago

While wide, those are not uselessly so. "A low number, but non-zero" isn't great information, but it's a start. Because understanding so-called "inconsequential infections" would have been very helpful at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. "Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through".

timr 2y ago
Purely statistically, sure. But you haven't included sample bias -- they did a small sample of farm workers. So at best you have a point estimate with a wide confidence interval that tells you (maybe) what rate of undiscovered infection you might expect to see if you sampled lots of farm workers. > "Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through". Thankfully, the article tells you that human-to-human transmission isn't a concern, so there's no need to speculate.

perihelions 2y ago

("continues to pose a low risk to the general public") I don't agree, and I would point out they used identical language mere weeks before covid-19 exploded [0]. Federal bureaucracies are reactive, not proactive. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-02-26-20-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-... ("Coronavirus risk to American public is low, health secretary says"; February 26, 2020)

throwup238 2y ago
Except this flu was first identified in 1996 and there still hasn’t been any large outbreaks in humans, just small pockets of infections among farm workers and their family members. It only took months between the first suspected COVID case and massive lockdowns.
- perihelions 2y ago
  Well, the outbreak in mammalian livestock is very novel, and enormous in scale. I'm not making any points or claims about the human pandemic risk, because I don't know. My point is a narrow one: that the CDC's current messaging language is low-signal and shouldn't be interpreted heavily.
  - dhosek 2y ago
    Well fortunately for pandemic response, I’m sure that the CDC will be sure to prevent it from spreading and encourage vaccinations. What could possibly go wrong?
- Fomite 2y ago
  The problem with flu is that with reassortment, and especially with an expansion of the host species, we're basically just making a bunch of saving throws, hoping they're all okay.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 2y ago
  > It only took months between the first suspected COVID case and massive lockdowns. ...and they made exactly the same mistakes of extrapolation from a small sample when they did that. You cannot conclude anything meaningful to the general population from a tiny sample of farmworkers.