Nobel prize-winning scientist: the Covid-19 epidemic was never exponential
unherd.com
unherd.com
The prediction this professor made about the number of deaths was not at start of February, like claimed in the article. It was three weeks later, when China was way past the peak.
The claim that the PFR has converged to the same number everywhere seems totally unfounded, though it's hard to say for sure given how vague he is about which regions he is comparing. But e.g. London and NYC are very similar in size, NYC has more deaths by a large factor.
He claims that the virus will peter out after inflicting one month's worth of excess deaths. NYC has already had 4-5 months worth of excess mortality, and are not yet through it. Is he just uninformed or intentionally lying? Hard to tell.
He claims that R0 is meaningless without also including a measure of how long a person remains infectious. That makes no sense. The definition of R0 already includes all the infections over the whole period of infectivity.
It's weird how the same people who are touting the lockdown are also saying we need to "listen to scientists" etc, but they aren't doing that: those people simply ignore or deny the facts and data which don't agree with their doomsday hypothesis.
This whole situation is so emotionally charged that it overrides the good sense of good people.
EDIT: If anyone is a fan of Warren Buffett, you should take some time from your day to watch the Berkshire meeting from yesterday. I really appreciate how he puts everything in context with none of the politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE
For example, Google was touting how great their YouTube stats were for news content because people were so hungry for news about coronavirus. So the news gave people what they want: doomsday all day every day. This corona thing has been very profitable for media.
While I haven't checked today, I'm sure if you go to the front page of any mainstream news site all you see is negativity (CNN, NYT, Fox, etc) and articles about how everything is falling apart.
So, I think if we're to blame anyone, we should first blame ourselves and second blame the news and their clickbaity-ness.
I did learn a lot about law during this though. In particular how little it all matters, even the core parts of national constitutions. All overruled, changed and whatever in days time. Those laws mean nothing.
Sure, because hiring festival companies to run temporary morgues is what we do every year.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/29/concerns-ove...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-cr...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-...
What people are saying is that 1) these lockdown measures aren't effective and 2) the side effects caused by keeping everyone under house arrest do more harm than the virus.
Yes, it's true that the virus spreads very quickly, but it's actually not very lethal. So sure it happens all at once, but it's nowhere close to as bad as the early models predicted. Hospitals aren't anywhere near capacity, in fact in most places they're having to lay off medical workers and close down sections of hospitals because they can't afford to keep their doors open.
If you want to keep spreading nonsense, then please do because I respect your right to do so, but I implore you (and others) to take a good hard look at the facts and try to understand what's really going on.
The parent poster quoted someone saying "this isn't unusual".
>Hospitals aren't anywhere near capacity, in fact in most places they're having to lay off medical workers and close down sections of hospitals because they can't afford to keep their doors open.
That is because of the lockdowns.
>If you want to keep spreading nonsense, then please do because I respect your right to do so, but I implore you (and others) to take a good hard look at the facts and try to understand what's really going on.
Same to you.
It's pretty lethal to people over 60.
> but it's nowhere close to as bad as the early models predicted.
But you think the lockdowns don't work?
> Hospitals aren't anywhere near capacity,
Not true.
> in fact in most places they're having to lay off medical workers and close down sections of hospitals because they can't afford to keep their doors open.
Not true.
From your link:
> The 10 leading causes of infant death in 2018 remained the same as in 2017.
Now go include 2020 there, and we're not even half way through the year.
I would say that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you’ve got to recognise when you’re filing a minority report as well. Mainstream epidemiologists, virologists etc. are not just a bunch of schmucks who are having a go at analysis because they’ve got time on their hands: this is their life’s work. That’s not an argument from authority–we should still scrutinise their findings–but nor is it an automatic condemnation of it. This especially applies when distinguished scientists are commenting outside their own field of expertise (how many people wasted money on megadoses of vitamin C because it was endorsed by Linus Pauling?).
Contrarian wisdom is always appealing, but it is not always right.
I used to think HN was a place where you could talk about the reality of the world, not the sensationalized or BS version. Maybe it once was, but it really isn't anymore. Nowadays YC uses HN as a way to shill their companies, and the average IQ of commenters seems to have reverted to the mean.
At least there's lobste.rs, which is a much better community now.
> the average IQ of commenters seems to have reverted to the mean
Absolutely (and sadly) 100% correct
Do you think you can’t talk about the real world anymore on HN? That’s not been my experience recently; I’ve made plenty of unpopular comments but people always seem willing to engage in debate.
Never heard of lobste.rs, thanks for the link, I will check it out!
You might want to look up some quotes by Italy's experts, who called this virus a "monster" (side note: I hate how the media turns "novel coronavirus" into "magic virus that transcends biology"), or so the press reported. The doom and gloom communication has always been the key point from the scientific committees here.
> Mainstream epidemiologists, virologists etc. are not just a bunch of schmucks who are having a go at analysis because they’ve got time on their hands
Disclaimer: the below part only applies to what I see first hand in my country (Italy)
No, they're people, like everyone else. And unfortunately, they're bound to make mistakes like everyone else. Note, I'm not saying that they're wrong by default. But some did totally downplay the risk in February and now they act like they knew everything all along. Some of them even made questionable public statements on areas of research they know little about (investigation of thrombosis in lungs; convalescent plasma therapy).
The fact that scientific research is very compartmentalized leads to interesting statements that sound like Murray Gell-Mann amnesia. Most of them talk about vaccines; few if any talk about the drugs in development (but in the interest of fairness, I'd probably do the opposite if I had to speak, as I'm far more trained in pharmacology than in virology).
I reserve skepticism even if agree with their statements. They're bound to get many more things right than lay people in the subject matter, but that doesn't mean they're always right. In particular, one must be wary when some do statements on public policy that are not their subject matter.
Yes, there has been hyperbole and a great deal of FUD, but there is also a real health crisis taking place. I agree that some of the science communication needs to improve dramatically, and that we should be thinking critically about the papers that are published (or merely circulated, as is the current fashion). What I haven’t seen yet is someone dismantle the current policies and the modelling they are based on in a systematic way-probably because of the lack of data and the absence of a control population anywhere on the planet. Perhaps the latter will be overcome with some innovative experiment or observation; the former will come in time.
There will be plenty of analyses, counter-analyses, and multiple books & dissertations written about this period. We'll have to wait and see how history judges Drs. Fauci, Birx, Jha, et al vs. Drs. Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, et al.
It will be fascinating to read about it.
Heretics wouldn't be allowed in epidemiological circles, which is why epidemiologists wouldn't be quick to spout this off, but the question still begs: what would a time bound have to do with a virus? And is there a proper comparative a/b case (perhaps in a similar country) to look at? And are there other viruses that behave this way?
Even shorter: Why would this virus be different than any virus before it? If it were created in a lab, which some intelligence agencies (and other conspiracy theorists) believe, could that account for it? Then why?
I'm unconvinced largely by the conspiracy theory, but I also don't necessarily think it's been convincingly proven false.
TFA: “After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths)...”
I’m guessing he’s looking at modern proto-pandemics, because you only have to go back to 1918 to see exponential part of the s curve last longer than two weeks.
Wouldn’t the null hypothesis than be in these modern times, where we understand germ theory, people start naturally practicing social distancing due to fear?
Otherwise what action is slowing virus contagion?
"After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”."
I agree with him on this. Just wanted to add that it is mostly at the expense of children - they are least to blame for all this mess but suffer most. No friends, no proper school, heck, not even going out with their bicycles or skateboards for months. I don't think they deserved this and I don't know how we will ever pay them back.
P.S. I'm a compatibilist, so I see no contradictions in this.
uh... no. (I am not an epidemiologist, but neither is he, so...)
R is an estimate of the total infections one person will cause. So if you're infected for twice as long, and R remains the same, then the growth rate will be halved. If you also halve R, the growth rate will also be halved.
I don't believe he understands what he's talking about.
BUT this article is about this -
"After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”.
This bit implies some sort of God, or the virus has sentience reason for "some kind of break kicks in"
So unless you want to explain this within the realms of reason, this article contributes nothing, because this is what it's about.