guscost

69 ms·

691.
by guscost 7y ago
It's my own prediction. Check back in a year, by which time SARS-CoV-2 will be just another endemic strain of coronavirus.
692.
by guscost 7y ago
And now the academy desperately tries to save face, as the COVID-19 pandemic starts to wind down, and the consequences of all the panic caused by the academy start to play out. This year will be remembered as the end of modern academia.
693.
by guscost 7y ago
Exactly right. If this new R0 estimate is correct then I'm not going to be pleased AT ALL with anyone saying: "We did it, the lockdown worked! By the way, ignore the extra suicides and child abuse this year."
694.
by guscost 7y ago
I've been mentioning this possibility here and getting in arguments over it for more than a week now. People don't have much of an appetite, it seems. My guess is that all the folks who were absolutely certain of a low R0 value an
695.
by guscost 7y ago
That's just fine and dandy then, I didn't lose my job, and Bill Gates doesn't need to earn money. Un-fucking-believable.
696.
by guscost 7y ago
Another model that fits the UK data, even when assuming that half of the population has already been infected, which would mean that the disease is not nearly as dangerous as commonly thought: https://nymag.com/intelligencer
697.
Oxford Model: Coronavirus May Have Already Infected Half of U.K. Population(nymag.com)
12 points by guscost 7y ago|3 comments
698.
by guscost 7y ago
> If 1% of that 60% die, as will happen with COVID19, that's a lot of deaths. I remain astounded by the level of certainty people can have about things which they barely understand at all.
699.
by guscost 7y ago
It would. But the correct choice is not obvious anymore, don't you see? Both worst-case outcomes lead to millions of deaths, and you're not able to prove which is more likely.
700.
by guscost 7y ago
> You quote 10% of the infected on the Diamond Princess as requiring hospitalization. 10% of symptomatic cases, not all cases, and definitely not all infected.
701.
by guscost 7y ago
It’s hugs or nothing, and hugs are only for family or good friends you haven’t seen in a while.
702.
by guscost 7y ago
> What would be the randomized double blind trial that you would run, and what information would it give us? I have absolutely no idea how to design or run a clinical study. > 60% of people will get the virus. All at the same time?? Y
703.
by guscost 7y ago
Let's not be naive here, the worst possible consequence of overreaction is a war .
704.
by guscost 7y ago
> What do you need a randomized double blind study for? You're not sure the people on the ship died of COVID? Er, you're not trying to figure out how the ship victims already died, you're trying to predict how many other
705.
by guscost 7y ago
But on the other other hand, they were all traveling, eating cruise ship food, and probably drinking, all of which could weaken their immune systems. We can add speculative adjustments all day long, but there's no way we're going
706.
by guscost 7y ago
Surely you must see that now we're having a moral/ethical/political/religious argument, very far removed from anything resembling science? This is exactly my point. You may believe that you have identified all of "t
707.
by guscost 7y ago
> I have not yet seen an adequate response to critics such as Nassim Taleb or Yaneer Bar-Yam. Is that even necessary? Taleb's school argues that empiricism has fundamental shortcomings because it must be "incomplete" in a
708.
by guscost 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_pneumonia
709.
by guscost 7y ago
Probably a good idea - someone out there must think it means burying your face in your cellphone while out with friends.
710.
by guscost 7y ago
Which city? This is not at all ordinary in my experience (at least in social settings - it’s normal in business settings).
711.
by guscost 7y ago
> They're reporting basically no new cases at this point. It’s like 50-100 new cases every day, looks like. I’m getting out of my depth with what exactly that allows us to rule out, but it sounds like “constantly restarting the chai
712.
by guscost 7y ago
That’s not even close to what I’m saying. How did you read my comment and understand it as that??
713.
by guscost 7y ago
You’re not even acknowledging the third possibility: if it doesn’t turn out “that bad” and the extreme measures don’t make much of a difference . This is the possibility I would be super pissed about, not the other two. Unfortunately, in e
714.
by guscost 7y ago
> If [South Korea] had [missed a large number of cases], those asymptomatic or mild cases should be constantly restarting the chain of transmission. If enough people have already recovered from mild or asymptomatic cases (it would have t
715.
Looking for Old Drugs That Might Treat Covid-19(sciencealert.com)
1 points by guscost 7y ago|0 comments
716.
by guscost 7y ago
Italy is looking like a “perfect storm” tragedy no matter what. The older population, combined with rapid, widespread transmission, to the point where critical cases completely overwhelm the health infrastructure, is absolutely a recipe for
717.
by guscost 7y ago
In most parts of the world, we have absolutely no idea how far the infection spread from about the end of October to at least February, so we can’t conclusively rule out that kind of error until we can test lots of people for antibodies (th
718.
by guscost 7y ago
On the other hand, the problem with your argument is that there is absolutely no way to be sure, today, that the mortality rate is even within an order of magnitude of 0.6%. And as more evidence comes out that this thing is spreading faster
719.
by guscost 7y ago
Yep, this is another huge potential problem. If we just wasted everyone’s tolerance for collective action on a nasty cold, that’s pretty fucking stupid.
720.
by guscost 7y ago
I’ve talked to a lot of folks in the past few weeks who aren’t laughing at all over what might be an overreaction. It’s making their lives very hard. If it turns out this is indeed an overreaction, they’re going to be totally pissed off, an

More ›