Hacker News Reader

Comment by eiji | Hacker News Reader

Without any meaningful context into which statements and observations like this are woven into, it's mostly counterproductive for the general public.

How about we treat side effects of alcohol drinking with the same urgency and publicity? We don't. I'm sure there is a lot happening in your body when you drink 4 beers. And you could write thousands of articles just like this right now with credible studies behind them about flying, drinking, sky diving, coffee, etc. And you could make them sound even more scary. None of which is taken seriously, because in the public there is no demand for it. Because those risks are just taken as a given for existing and participating.

But at the moment every little effect is being treated like world news. Casual medications advertised for on TV have more significant side effects.

View on HN

This is a baffling viewpoint to me. You realize that alcohol abuse isn't contagious, right?

You realize that alcohol related deaths top 80,000 per year in the US? And that doesn't even include secondary deaths e.g. traffic accidents? You realize you can buy this stuff in almost every store that carries a bottle of water? And that it's taxed?

So let's assume we top out at 160,000 covid19 deaths by Christmas. Let's compare the news coverage of those 80k alcohol deaths with those 160k covid19 deaths.

That’d be 160,000 deaths even while under social distancing and isolation measures. The number would be much higher if a large portion of the country and particularly the New York Area weren’t staying at home. We’ve made it to 70k in 2 months with social distancing.

Actually, I’ve seen this tactic of argument with the number of deaths incremented for months, including from our esteemed pres. First it was “there are NO deaths, relax,” then “all this for 3,000 deaths?”, then “this many people die from the flu!”, and now the same argument with a 160k figure and alcohol. I wonder at what point this shape of argument will stop being made.

"man shot 9 times dies due to corona virus".

I question how the media is counting these deaths from corona virus. The infection fatality rate keeps going DOWN not up, in peer-reviewed journals. I suspect its going to end up like swine flu. The amount of people that actually die from this will be 10x lower than the initial media outlook, once you calculate the numbers honestly.

You may suspect whatever you like. The evidence of hard hit areas like Lombardia and NYC are enough evidence of the seriousness of this to me. But clearly your evidentiary standard differs.

Moreover I haven’t seen anything to suggest IFR isn’t in the .5% to 1% range, compared to <.1% for the average flu. Do you think the 1.3% fatality rate from the Diamond Princess was just bad luck for them?

Because the data isn't random enough? They've done random studies in a bunch of places, including germany and california and the IFR is about 0.2% - 0.38% and it keeps getting lower. There's no way in hell the IFR is 1.3%, that's just media sensationalism .

I mean, it’s not media sensationalism to point out 13 of the ~1000 people on that ship who tested positive died.

You’re so heated about your media preoccupation that you’re calling facts media sensationalism while trying to present as making a rational case.

Of course it's media sensationalism.

As an exaggerated example, if I went to people who are all on stage4 cancer, and give them the corona virus, and 20% of them die, cnn will post something like "the corona virus kills 20% of people based on that sample!"

"Swine flu's" eventual death count ended up being 10x lower than what "the news" was initially predicting.

So your argument is that the recorded death toll and infection count from the boat is media sensationalism.

(I don’t recall reading it was a cruise for stage 4 cancer patients. Darn media)

I said "exaggerated example". And the cruise had a hugely disproportionate number of elderly people, which skews the "random" sample.

So yes, it's media sensationalism.

The “it” you are taking about is a straw man interpretation. The figures are what they are. I never said the ship data proves that IFR is 1.3%, you just seem to have gotten triggered and said pointing out some evidence which could help determine what the IFR may be constitutes media sensationalism.

BTW if the at risk population is 10% and the IFR for that population is 10% and 0% for everyone else, and infections are spread evenly, that works out to 1% IFR. You have some things you’re very frustrated by, I can tell, but your attempt to substantiate your emotions with data criticism is not successful.

The true IFR rate is nowhere near 1.3% or even 1%. This, in the same way that the new york true "death toll" is nowhere near what they are reporting. It's a plain-old case of "man shot nine times dies of corona virus" headlines. These are just wildly exaggerated numbers through intellectually dishonest sampling that the media is incentivized to give.

You're just repeating assertions without basis.

My "basis" is peer-review academic journals. Not commercial media sources who are incentivized to sensationalize the numbers.

Of course it is.

I think you're missing the point of the original comments. The argument is not about deaths, but about the way the media covers different topics.

I think the Post is about coronavirus and my comment is more on topic than the off topic content about alcohol that I was responding to.

You're right. We shouldn't talk about a bad thing when the there are other bad things to talk about.

What exactly is your point here beyond comparing apples to oranges? A contagious disease is kind of a whole different ballpark compared to alcohol and I'm having trouble parsing why you would compare the two.

The flu is a contagious disease, but you never made a big deal about it until now, at least according to your post history. The only reason you're making a big deal about it is because the media is. The IFR is actually going DOWN, not UP.

Just post “wake up sheeple!” and move on. this you’re tricked by the media shtick has no place here.

Also “aha! You never made a big deal on hacker news about this other contagious disease which has been with humanity for millennia! You are a fraud!” Is not a good argument.

But the media is known to put misleading articles because it generates more ratings. This is no different.

OK. You should take your boilerplate media conspiracy content somewhere else, it has no place here.

The IFR is variable based on where it's sampled and the range is anywhere from 0.2 to 0.8ish. This isn't 'media bullshit', this is from actual studies. Even at the lower bounds of 0.2, that places it at double the IFR of the seasonal flu.

It seems more like the only reason why you're not making a big deal out of it is because you've bought into irrational skepticism. The fact is that I have family members that are severely at risk if they were to catch the coronavirus, so I have a vested interest in making sure that they don't get it.

But if it makes you feel better, by all means include me as part of your media conspiracy.

I have family members that "are severely at risk", which is why I am self-infecting then quarantining. That way, antibodies form naturally and I can't spread it to anyone, including my family and yours.

And the IFR keeps going down, not up.

>You realize that alcohol related deaths top 80,000 per year in the US?

Alcohol consumption is a voluntary, pleasurable activity for the vast majority of drinkers, and the complication rate is many orders of magnitude lower than it is for COVID.

Alcohol and COVID aren't anywhere close to the same league. This comparison doesn't make sense.

To put this in perspective: even responded to, covid has the capacity to double the amount of deaths per year, compared to normal. That is rather higher than alcohol.

You are aware that alcohol is not contagious?

We'll probably have 500k dead by xmas in the us alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com