Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

The rally was a bad idea but this is junk science. The public health cost estimate is based on the assumption that asymptomatic cases somehow cost $11,000 each. That is obviously nonsense.

View on HN

The authors spend 15 pages or so describing the calculations, its limitations, and alternative calculations.

Focusing on one parameter to throw out the whole paper would be junk science.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf

The authors spend 0 pages describing the basis for the $11,000 cost of asymptomatic cases. In fact they just blindly accepted the estimate from Kniesner and Sullivan (2020), who picked a number without doing any calculation of actual costs. So I stand by my assessment that this is junk science.

I didn't see where the $11,000 estimate for asymptomatic cases came from (can anyone point to exactly where that's from?)

However, if it is the case that the authors did use that estimate for a per-asymptomatic case cost, then I think it's perfectly valid to throw out the rest of the paper as nonsense. I mean, the only reason anyone is talking about this paper at all is because the top-line number is so outrageously high. If a fundamental calculation going into that number is that patently ridiculous, I don't care if you have 15 pages or 1500 pages, adding more pages of numbers can't get around the absurdity of the underlying primary assumption.

Replying to my own comment, I found the paper where they got the 11k from, it's page 7 on this link: http://ftp.iza.org/dp13632.pdf.

This analysis is complete, utter, and total bullshit. They took a "value per statistical life" number of $11 million, then pulled a semi random 0.3% out of their ass to account for an $11k cost per asymptomatic case. At no point did they actually attempt to account anywhere for the true cost of treating (or, in this case not treating) an asymptomatic case.

These numbers are complete garbage.

Aren’t all world-wide c19 measures made on assumptions? Slowly people are realizing that such assumption-based „science“ might not have been that scientific at all.

The hundreds of thousands of deaths are not an assumption. Nor are the people still in recovery or with other probably permanent damage.

I’ve heard that CDC has corrected down c19-related deaths to a merely 6% of the initially c19-reported deaths. The other 94% had other health issues as well and it can’t be said any longer that their death is related to c19. Isn’t that true?

And I've heard that nothing you just said is true. Isn't that right?

Hearsay is not an argument.

Exactly. Use your own rationale!

> I’ve heard that CDC has corrected down c19-related deaths to a merely 6% of the initially c19-reported deaths.

That sounds like the kind of big news you should have no trouble finding a citation for.

> The other 94% had other health issues as well and it can’t be said any longer that their death is related to c19.

That's a funny definition of "related". The presence of other contributing factors does not mean that none of the blame lies with the coronavirus.

That doesn't appear to be correct https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-the-cdc-has-no....

Only 6% of fatalities were listed as "only COVID-19 related", which means removing every fatality listed with a preexisting conditions. I don't see how that number is at all helpful for measuring the risk level to any general population.

Besides the other 94%, simply not dying is not the best metric either. The better metric is causing any serious harm, not just fatalities.

That’s my point. It’s all about assumptions. Exactly as with the article being discussed in this thread. Such articles have little value to understanding truth. But they help with superspreading fear.

No, it means that 94% still died due to COVID, but had pre-existing conditions that made them more susceptible. These are not people that likely would have been on the brink of death otherwise... that is the common misunderstanding in this misinformation.

Over 40% of the US is obese, for example, which increases your likelihood of a fatal outcome. So if you are obese and 40, it’s unlikely that you’d otherwise die in 2020. But if you get Covid and die from it, you’re a part of that 94%.

I said "besides the other 94%" meaning "even ignoring the others 94% who died with preexisting conditions" ... dying itself shouldn't be the only concern, even to those without existing conditions. As there is plenty of evidence of long-term harm to people who survived.

I don't see how that is at odds with anything you said.

Yes, only 6% of deaths attributed to covid can be /solely/ attributed to covid, otherwise the other 94% had other complications in addition to covid

Exactly. That’s the point —- it’s all about assumptions being made for the other 94%. And it’s easy to come up with assumptions. And it’s hard to understand the truth.

No. The death being due to covid isn’t in dispute. It’s about characterizing who is at most risk. You can be young and have health problems while still living for many more decades, but then you got Covid, died, and now you’re part of the 94%. Given 40% of the US is obese and would fit into this 94%, that’s not something to then ignore and say therefore only 6% of the population could be affected by this. That’s an incorrect understanding of the statistics.

This misrepresentation has been dangerously incorrectly stated either intentionally or ignorantly by people who have an agenda to push, and that agenda isn’t in service to public health.

That's one way to interpret the story but that's not how would suggest to understand things. Given your explanation model we could easily argue that every dead person which tested positive for herpes will be accounted to herpes. And a huge chunk of the population has it.

It’s not one way, it’s the way: https://www.axios.com/fauci-cdc-coronavirus-deaths-data-clai...

Furthermore, excess deaths are off the charts, which cannot be explained by these other factors all of the sudden becoming fatal: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Glad to hear that you found the one and only way.

Can you please try a simple web search[0] instead of choosing to spread misinformation by couching it in a question? The CDC did not “correct down” anything; this bad faith argument is like saying that someone who was hit by a car didn’t die from getting hit by a car because the death certificate says they died from “brain haemorrhage”.

(Direct links to fact checking sites: [1] [2])

[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+6%25

[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-mortality-statistics/

[2] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/cdc-did-not-admit-only-6-o...

Internet is full of bullshit these days. “Doing a simple/quick search” is NOT leading to a true understanding of things in 2020.

Another analogy: it's like saying that somebody who got stabbed 15 times but had hemophilia didn't die of a stabbing.

This guy (blumomo) is arguing in bad faith and yet keeps doubling down. An all-too-common behavior pattern these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com