Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"The rationale was incredibly clear"

If you trust the same kind of "Scientific Modeling" that create Hurricane Path Predictions. Notorious for being hysterically wrong.

Then sure... that's wonderfully "clear"...

If, instead, you look at "models" and "projections" as junk science that's easy to prove wrong by simply looking at any model and how horribly wrong it's been in the past?

Like... the COVID models have been horribly wrong so far...

Then no... it's not "incredibly clear"



Which models on COVID are you referring to that are horribly wrong?

Also curious why you think the US was so badly effected compared to say south korea or thailand?

Do you think it would be safe for everyone to go back to relative normal? What would your prediction of the effect be? What data would you trust to validate that prediction?

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity how someone who I'm assuming is well meaning can get to this position. I'm happy enough to be convinced if your prediction turns out correct as there will be plenty of different states that are going to do a variety of strategies.


"Which models" the ones projecting 2.2 million deaths... the ones based on 4% fatality rates.

"do you think it would be safe" With the data thats coming out? Yes. Absolutely. COVID is turning out to only be a little more dangerous than the Flu and "lockdowns" are not slowing or stopping the spread of the virus.

"How can someone get to this position"

Honestly... January WHO was saying COVID didn't pass person to person and models were predicting 2.2 million dead in the US alone.

I'm not making a prediction... I'm casting aspersions on the "predictions" that have been used to feed opinions like "do you think it would be safe?" as if we are all going to die - 99.5% of those who get it survive. Worse than the flu but not worth shutting everything down (which hasn't stopped it at all - look at New York).

Personally I know we can protect those who need extra protections (Old, ill, etc) without unproven shutdowns based on faulty models fed with bad data.

Why do I feel this way? Because I know that hurricane predictions are "Scientific models" and are wrong just like "market predictions" and all other forms of prediction based models based on past data.


Wanted to say thanks for the honest answers. The models you describe weren’t the ones that I saw - maybe in the worst case with like a 2% death rate?


I'm opinionated and if I can get something to change my mind I try to keep an open mind.

But I've seen higher death rates in public threads as a common theme.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-death-rate...

"In Italy, the death rate stands at about 13 percent, and in the United States, around 4.3 percent, according to the latest figures on known cases and deaths. Even in South Korea, where widespread testing helped contain the outbreak, 2 percent of people who tested positive for the virus have died, recent data shows."

Granted... those death rates are "known" cases which gets cut when you add no/low symptoms to the "unknown infected".

We are still gathering data and the numbers vary greatly depending on country and testing methods.

Which is my biggest point... it goes from 4%+ down to .5% or lower depending on how you spin the numbers.

Hard to take "projections" seriously with THAT much unknown data.

edit: For the 2.2 million dead projection:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-and-the-coronavirus-...

"The CDC modeled four scenarios and estimated that 200,000 to 1.7 million U.S. residents could die, the Times reported."

"Think of the number: 2.2 — potentially 2.2 million people if we did nothing. If we didn’t do the distancing, if we didn’t do all of the things that we’re doing." -Trump




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: