Looks cool! It definitely looks technically challenging, especially for expert climbers who have a variety of creative moves at their disposal. But I can definitely see this being useful for novices.
Also the creator of Fooocus, the open source version of Midjourney. It’s amazing how much one person can contribute to a field in such a short span of time.
You have a glaring mistake in your very first paragraph: 2% of $60 million is $1.2 million, not $120k. The calculations on your Google sheet look correct though.
> And yet, when it comes to the ways in which A.I. codes of ethics are discussed, a troubling tendency is at work even as the world wakes up to the field’s significance. This is the belief that A.I. codes are recipes for automating ethics itself; and that once a broad consensus around such codes has been achieved, the problem of determining an ethically positive future direction for computer code will have begun to be solved.
Is anyone actually claiming that AI programs will "automate ethics"? The post seems rather pointless.
To be clear, the Korean government officially still recommends social distancing. They are especially worried about the family picnics mentioned in the article, and have officially closed many public parks in response.
To repeat: don't take this as a sign that Korea believes it has successfully managed the outbreak.
I'm actually slightly worried as Singapore seemed to have handled the crisis quite well with only 1000ish cases for the longest time, but have now had cases balloon from only around 1350 total cases two weeks ago to 6000 today.
Certainly, a lot of it has to with migrant workers and their living situations, but it also underscores how even when you have things under control, the virus can spread rapidly when your guard is down.
Tbh, SG should have never let people come particularly from countries with covid outbreaks during March. While spreading across the dorms is a big part of the internal spreading, it's clear the outbreak that started in March were clusters involving people coming to sg from abroad.
Almost everyone shut down travel from China (particularly Wuhan) but no one shut down travel from Europe during March. Biggest mistake ever. I don't know enough if it was tourists or whether it was returning Singaporeans but they should have instructed them to remain where they were for the sake of the country.
Kind of - it closed the borders for Europeans traveling to the US, but did little to manage Americans returning from abroad. Given March is winter in the US (thus less tourism), I would imagine the majority of Europe -> US traffic at the time is Americans returning home, that's a rather weak closure.
I think you are diminishing the amount of traffic between Europe and US on any given day. Closing the borders to Europe may very well have saved us from catastrophe. Numbers exploded everywhere in March.
My point was that tourism to the US is probably not uniform throughout the year, and March is likely on the lower end of tourism. Hence the ratio of traffic being Americans returning home is higher.
The vast majority of people entering Singapore in March were Singapore citizens returning. A lot of them were students who came back because the schools had closed.
The mistake was not letting them it, but to let them self-quarantine at home. This led to them infecting other family members who then spread it further.
This has changed now as anyone entering Singapore has to be quarantined in a separate facility.
Why is letting them stay where they were an issue? The country (an isolated island, Palau) where my parents are from did that even for students and it's kept covid19 from reaching there till now. Given their situation, they can't afford any cases at all until there's a vaccine. I get you care about your citizens abroad but it's clear that's where all the hotspots in sg turned up in March.
It will be fine as long as the medical system is prepped to handle surge/moving overflow smoothly/pulling in and sharing resources etc.
Remember most positives won't require hospitalization (~50% wont even show any symptoms, 40% will have mild symptoms). And compared to few months back readiness/awareness levels at hospitals is much higher.
It is closer to 20% A lot of articles stating more are mis-interpreting those numbers from prospective studies. It is possible that the authors of such studies would downplay false positives as well.
50% keeps recurring because multiple mass testing efforts found that half of tested people were asymptomatic. However, that is mostly a function of a long incubation period. A significant portion of the infected developed symptoms later.
I think they don't know yet, even the US were saying it might be 25-50% a couple of days ago. For example the testing of the aircraft carrier, one of the few cases of total population testing, showed 60% asymptomatic cases but had a young population, and it's not clear from the information we've heard publically if some of those will develop symptoms later.
The calm before the storm happens in countries that are not testing people adequately. The numbers seem to explode when they really start testing.
South Korea is still testing aggressively. Recently they even started re-testing recovered patients. Those who tested positive had their contacts traced and tested too. As long as they remain vigilant, they will not see another big explosion. They seem to have the right attitude.
I’m waiting to see if there will be a little outbreak as a result of the elections they held recently.
Couldn't find a better page, but according to a past version of wikipedia table[1], as of Mar 31, Japan had tested 32,497 people. The US had tested 1,108,500; South Korea, 410,564.
A lot of people were perplexed by Japan's lack of testing. Seems like Japan's strategy (whatever it was) didn't work out in the end.
Nobody believed Japan. Trump had to call Abe to consider postponement and Canada was the first country to announce they wouldn't send their athletics to the summer Olympics in Tokyo on March 22.
Almost all new cases are from clusters in dormitories for migrant workers. They live very close together in those locations, and things will spread very fast.
Numbers outside these locations are going down because of the recent "circuit breaker" they introduced a few weeks ago.
To repeat: don't take this as a sign that Korea believes it has successfully managed the outbreak.
South Korea has had fewer deaths than other nations, South Korea has a semi-open economy now. What better model for managing the outbreak is there? (The condition of Europe and the US look very dismal) It's kind of strange seeing this claim with no substantiation beside "repeat" apparently staying on the top of HN for a while.
South Korea hasn't entirely averted the danger and is clearly still keeping it in mind. The virus is going to be around for a while and normalizing life is needed and it seems South Korea has to the testing and contact tracing infrastructure needed for this. What is the counter-argument?
South Korea suppressed an epidemic and strengthened the tools they had for suppressing epidemics, maintaining economic strength and social cohesion.
How are they not best position in the stage of managing the epidemic (the appropriate term used by the ggp).
Oh, I know one really bad answer people are ready with - they didn't let the virus burn through their population to acquire herd immunity. The degree to which any other approach is going to leave a society ready to deal with new waves of this seems really, really low. Certainly, current US events aren't preparing for any future crisis.
Well, for one thing, people were saying the same about Singapore, but the number of cases there has grown exponentially. A pandemic isn't over in a few months, we have to look at it over years.
For example: behavioural scientists tell us that people will only stand one major lockdown; using that lockdown early to keep deaths to a minimum initially may not be the best strategy. So thinking about the long-term is essential.
Not saying you're wrong that South Korea has a good track record to this point. I am saying you're wrong to extrapolate that out to the likely arrival of a vaccine programme in 2021.
In that case I wouldn't trust any country not to fudge the numbers. As far as Japan goes, I believe the numbers are close enough. They have a very high population of elderly and smokers. People would be dropping like flies and making a lot of noise about it if the numbers were far worse.
Social distancing, wearing masks, staying home when sick, cleaning all fomites frequently are things the Japanese were doing before this pandemic culturally, I imagine those actions are in over drive now.
I'm reminded of when the subway tunnels in Japan flooded and the water was so clear you'd have thought it was a swimming pool. Even Chinese netziens commented on how absurdly clean Japan is when the pictures emerged.
Japan had been under-testing and under-reporting to save their face -- or the Olympics. As recent as last week, their health official confessed they had a testing capacity for only 200 per day in Tokyo. Japan's case number and death started skyrocketing since the Olympics postponement on March 24 and nobody thinks it's just a coincidence.
Also note Japan has a large elderly population, or about 32+K, who die unnoticed in solitude every year.
Japan was certainly trying to save the Olympics but when it became clear nobody would attend, numbers "skyrocketed" the same way US numbers did, ie. we started actually testing people and confirming what everyone else already knew, that this thing spread like wildfire.
Testing isn't even useful at this point, we should operate under the assumption everyone has or will have it, and just treat those who are having complications. You don't need to get tested to know you have a cold, just deal with it.
Sure, which is to say, Japan intentionally deceived the world -- they under-tested and under-reported their case numbers to project a false perception of safety and control before the Olympics.
We didn't even have FDA approved test kits until last month, I imagine that similar agencies exist in Japan which required government intervention to expedite the process. I know you want to believe they had nefarious intentions but bureaucracy and incompetence are often the culprit when it comes to government.
In the US it wasn't just a matter of getting tests made, but getting all the various states and private testing centers connected so the federal government could aggregate the data. Smaller countries or those with socialized/public healthcare had an easier time at this because their systems were already unified. Tiny countries like South Korea trying to talk down the US for not getting tests out as fast is them is humorous. California alone has greater landmass and 80% of SK's population.
Besides that, Japan is still doing very well despite their population density meeting/exceeding many major hotspots. And the US is likely out of the woods, we should definitely be back to normal next month.
The article and discussions about Korea seem to mainly revolve around testing and contact tracing. These are complex and expensive, and substantially more difficult to manage in a country like the US which is 7x the population, and is somewhat decentralized (50 states).
Meanwhile, the on the street observations in the article are: masks, masks, masks. Masks are cheap and easy. So let's start with masks, masks, masks first while we figure out and ramp up testing and contact tracing.
the first Apple store to reopen outside China had lines snaking out the door as many South Koreans -- almost all wearing masks
At Han River park in Seoul’s Banpo district, families -- also in masks -- were having picnics
including requiring voters to wear masks and disposable plastic gloves while casting their ballots
People are still wearing masks and mind talking face-to-face with strangers
I think in principle hindering spread is much EASIER in the US than in South Korea.
The US has a huge advantage in its low population density and spread out population. That slows down the spread of disease. Not to mention the advantage of a car centric society. In the US you can travel from A to B without exposing yourself to other people. Americans also mostly live in separate houses further reducing the risk of the spread of disease.
All through human history population density has been a major contributor to pandemics. One can see e.g. how New York is much harder hit than LA. LA is low density housing and almost no public transport.
Europe and Asia in contrast is almost all more like New York. IMHO that makes the success in South Korea more impressive not LESS.
We see the same in Europe. The densely populated countries tend to be harder hit. E.g. Denmark has enacted equally strict measures as Norway sooner yet has twice the number of deaths. Norway has an advantage in being more like the US, having a relatively spread out population.
I don't think the decentralization is the main problem at the moment. Germany is also decentralized. It is a federal republic like the US. However unlike the US, Germany has a cooperation oriented leadership where the central government listens to the leaders of the states and coordinate with them.
In the US it seems to be all postering and blame game. It is very hard to evaluate the US results without taking into account its current disastrous leadership. The US is lead by a reality star. Germany is led by a former scientific researcher with a PhD in quantum chemistry. Should we be surprised why Germany is having the best results in the West, while the US is rapidly approaching the worst results?
What saves the US is that there are numerous governors who are good leaders and to some degree counterweight the absurdity of the federal government.
But seriously in what country does the President encourage riot in provinces of their own country? Looking from abroad the US is looking increasingly like a Banana republic. I how things work out fine for everybody. But I am worried.
I hope you are not including Cuomo — the governer at the epicenter of the worst hit NY — in your “list of good governers”? This was his quote from early March:
"People are reacting like this is the Ebola virus. This is not the Ebola virus. This hysteria that you see, this fear that you see, the panic that you see is unwarranted. We have dealt with worse viruses. This spreads like the flu, but most people will have it and they get on with their lives."
As again with political analysis, I am seeing downright inconsistencies and biases in judging responses to this pandemic, based on what side one is on. Do you apply the same remarks to the POTUS as well?
> Not to make this too political but can't the same logic be applied to the POTUS too? Changed tone and done a decent job using the fed muscle to beef up on ventilators and testing. What am I missing when I hear contradicting analysis around politicians, presumably based on which "side" one is on. We should be consistent in acknowledging that no one (at least in the US) got the severity of this correct.
The same logic does apply to President Trump. But he has not changed his tune. He's done some of the right things under pressure, but then goes and says that he wants to re-open the country by Easter, etc. I don't follow what he says closely (after all, I don't live in the US), but the picture I've gotten about him is that he's inconsistent and not really trustworthy.
> then goes and says that he wants to re-open the country by Easter
From what I noticed (it's been a while) the reporting on that was a bit weird. The statement was more like "I hope it'll be fine by Easter". That's still a weird thing to say, but less strange than what was reported.
The way statements were made to the public seems to be different per country. E.g. in NL the prime minister said something like "we need to take this very seriously and it will take a long time". They showed a similar presentation from France, were the statement included stuff about "fighting a war". So despite needing to say similar things, the messaging can differ quite a bit per country. In US the statements seem quite strange; dismissing the importance as authority figure seems dangerous and irresponsible.
He’s pretty much right though. It spreads worse than the flu and Dr. Ioaniddis recently published a serological study showing it seems to have a mortality rate similar to the flu. An overwhelming majority of people who get it will not die. Ioaniddis et. al. suggests the evidence points towards 1~2 out of a thousand mortality rate.
We should not be panicking. We should be mitigating the disease based on the evidence at hand.
[citation needed] about cherry picking. The limits of their scheme was acknowledged and discussed in the paper. What cherry picking are you referring to that wasn’t addressed?
"I think the authors of the above-linked paper owe us all an apology. We wasted time and effort discussing this paper whose main selling point was some numbers that were essentially the product of a statistical error."
I'm skeptical whenever I see a teardown like this which fails to mention that the offical case counts have all the same problems. Maybe we should dismiss this paper - but that means committing ourselves to radical skepticism about the prevalence, not going back and believing the numbers printed in the news.
PCR tests are asymmetric. Positive result almost certainly means that this person has the virus, but negative result might mean a number of things. Bad swab (less than 3000 virus copies), temporary remission (Korea has at least 160 such cases by now), etc.
Test kit availability adds another layer. At some point New York had 200 confirmed cases, and two weeks later 400 deaths, yet CFR is unlikely to be as high as 200%.
So yes, all statistics should be taken with a grain of salt, but magnitude and direction of that grain may be different.
While Gelman does point out to issues that may invalidate this paper (test specificity, mostly, and noisy weights, potentially) there does not seem to be any "cherry picking" involved.
I would say even if the study is merely statistical error, using it to give an implausibly low estimate of the IFR that just happens to fit the agenda of one author qualifies as cherry picking. A priori you can not use a test with high false positive rate to do a study like this unless the prevalence is much higher than the false positive rate.
If I were to make an informed estimate based on the limited testing data we have, I would say that covid-19 will result in fewer than 40,000 deaths this season in the USA,
He also predicted about 10,000 deaths in total in his mid-March article -- and he even meant that number without any special measures like social distancing and WFH.
No, Imperial gave an estimation of what would happen without measures, but there were measures taken. So in their case, it's natural that the actual number (with measures) would be much less.
Ioannidis' already 4x surpassed prediction was 10K deaths without measures.
Given that we have 4x WITH measures, this means we would be many times more wrong if we followed his advice and didn't take any...
If he's off by 1.5x (IHME model predicts 60k fatalities attributed to COVID-19), surely that's miles better than the what - 50x predicted at the start (I recall seeing 2mil fatalities passed around by Imperial for the US)? 40k deaths is a little less than a week of natural deaths in the US, for scale.
It's worth putting his actual statement here, so people can decide whether you're misrepresenting him.
From his article [1]:
> If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.
He ventured a prediction of the CFR. And then just calculates the amount of deaths from a pretty arbitrary infected percentage of the population (there's no mention of the time scale either). Never does he predict that 1% will be infected. He's arbitrarily picking a number to illustrate the amount of deaths we'd see, but that all depends on how the disease spreads. Oddly enough his serology study ends up being somewhat close - instead of 1%, they saw 1.80-3.17% (in Santa Clara).
But he uses exactly this in his argument, in the same paragraph: "If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average."
Then later: "Some worry that the 68 deaths from Covid-19 in the U.S. as of March 16 will increase exponentially to 680, 6,800, 68,000, 680,000 … along with similar catastrophic patterns around the globe. Is that a realistic scenario, or bad science fiction?"
Then he claims that "The most valuable piece of information for answering those questions would be to know the current prevalence of the infection in a random sample of a population"
But I claim he already had, at the moment he wrote that article, much better data than that already available: specifically, that all the statistics everybody could find even in the Wikipedia already gave much more information that he claimed has to be obtained by "a random sample of a population."
One can evaluate "how random" all already known cases, at the time he wrote the article, were. But also one can evaluate, if these known cases, even if they weren't random, were actually saying more, not less, by the nature the numbers were obtained.
And that was exactly the case: time and again, in country after country, the statistics included much more people than the small randomness based study would include, and it gave reasonable estimates about both the speed of the spread and percentage of the people affected.
His argument was not based on analyzing already available data, but on "not knowing" by *refusing to even look at the already available data.
Which is fraudulent, ignorant or both. But there were some big names doing exactly the same, exactly at the time he published that article. So his article was just political, not scientific at all.
at what multiplier would you consider being skeptical about what he says.
your comparison of the 2 mil which was the worst case scenario months ago, and now irrelevant, with 40k which was his prediction from 10 days ago is wrong.
You have to read the study’s details, not just the number in the headline. The IC report’s highest number was looking at what would happen if strong countermeasures were not taken, and they subsequently were — it’s like criticizing the justifications for mandating seatbelts because so many fewer people die in car crashes now.
that's what I am trying to tell him. comparing his prediction a week ago with measures to a prediction a month or more ago without measure is pointless.
The Ioaniddis survey was a total sham. The true fatality rate will wind up being something like 1-2%, if counted by excess deaths.
A town in Italy, Castiglione d'Adda, had 1.4% of its population die in March. Normally 0.1% dies in a month. That town did a serological survey of blood donors, and 70% came up positive. That exact number won't apply everywhere because there are different age distributions, different comorbibitities, different genes, etc., but that is the ballpark we're looking at.
0.15% of New York City has already died. That should tell you how reliable Ioaniddis' numbers are.
Exactly. I wonder how many lives could have been saved if we (western/European countries) didn’t have such an aversion to wearing face masks, even in a time of pandemic?
I wonder how many lives could have been saved if we (western/European countries) didn’t have such an aversion to wearing face masks
My wife and I were one of the few people wearing masks at the start of the pandemic, before the closing and work from home orders came. We were harassed by random people shouting at us.
Also, I don't really get the societal penalty for disaster preparation. It's completely illogical. Just a few weeks before the news was really onboard with the pandemic, a woman at my apartment was looking at how many amazon boxes I had on my hand cart. I told her, "In times like this, it pays to be prepared." She looked at me like I was scum. My understanding is that some news outlets were actually denigrating disaster preparation at that point.
> Also, I don't really get the societal penalty for disaster preparation.
It makes a lot of sense: if you're preparing for a disaster, you won't go down with everyone else when disaster strikes. This creates some feeling of resentment which caused people to lash out at you.
you won't go down with everyone else when disaster strikes. This creates some feeling of resentment which caused people to lash out at you.
A well known psychologist was castigated a few years back for his likening people to lobsters. Yet here we have a perfect example of people acting like the proverbial lobsters who drag the escaping lobster back into the pot.
I was in a similar position at work. I was continually pointing out from mid-January onwards, that this was a serious issue that might spread world-wide. That we should at least conduct some tests/drills to insure that our business could function remotely. I was treated like a third head had grown atop my shoulders.
Jump to mid-March, when the pandemic was obvious to anyone with the least amount of curiosity, and the same group was saying "It's just a flu." The only thing that was socially acceptable to discuss was how many guns you might need in an apocalypse.
Technically, not an influenza virus. However, from what we know of virus diseases that cross species, it's not the 1st time a virus with this severe capability to spread rapidly has crossed over into humans. It's also not going to be the last.
The aspect of that statement that's true, which is worse than a lie, is that, "It's just a flu," puts people in mind of a disease that's a normalized part of everyday life. It's often the case, that when a virus crosses over to our species, the situation is far more dire than normal.
IIRC, when syphilis crossed over into humans, it would flat-out kill people in 2 weeks.
My best theory so far is that when it comes to telling people what they themselves need to do (as opposed to inactionable general fear), mainstream media narratives are based around telling audiences the easy answer that they want to hear - eg you don't have to do anything to prepare, and those that do are wrong. Obviously this has always been an ongoing quality (eg no need to oppose the Iraq war since it's just), but with a public health emergency it's front and center.
Well, it was impossible to buy masks for much of the lockdown in France, so…
But banning the sale of masks isn't the most stupid idea we had in France, I'd say it was forbidding jogging from 10h to 19h in Paris was the worst, with all the joggers clustering from 8h to 10h and 19h to 20h
No one has done a controlled study on this, so no one really knows. It ranges from zero to many.
The reason government and medical signaling on the subject has been so mixed is that it isn’t apparent they are very effective, especially the jury rigged cloth masks that people are using.
Even basic mask works quite well in stopping infected person spreading it further. This isn't some recent covid-related revelation, but long known fact. To say it for the 1000th time - this doesn't make you magically virus-proof, but significantly lowers the infection rate of those who have it. On large enough scale, this behavior makes significant difference in infection rates.
I have yet to see a single western leader to recommend those masks for all the interactions (indoor at least). Case point - yesterday I went shopping in fairly large supermarket in Switzerland, and there were maybe 5 other customers (out of at least 100 in the store during that time, probably close to 200 plus all the staff) wearing masks, or gloves. People at least often kept their distance (not always possible in aisles), but that's about it. In a country which has one of most per-capita infections globally.
Why? They rely heavily on politicians doing right stuff. Mostly it works, but in these times politicians prefer keeping economy running (they delayed strong measures when things were getting worse than bad in Italy few kms from their border due to fear of financial impacts... well now they are worse but delayed by few days).
New York and New Jersey have gone past recommending masks, and have mandated them for anyone out in public, along with limiting the number of people allowed to go into a store, and a 6ft distance in any line/queue.
There are many controlled studies on other respiratory disease like the flu, and some on other corona viruses like SARS the show high efficacy of masks. If you doubt the science, fall back on common sense. A respiratory barrier is going to have some value in diminishing the ability of a respiratory virus to spread.
The reason government and medical signaling on the subject has been so mixed is that it isn’t apparent they are very effective
The reason signaling has been mixed is because they were trying to preserve supply for medical professionals. The reason that medical professionals need them is because they work.
>No one has done a controlled study on this, so no one really knows. It ranges from zero to many.
Can't remember seeing any controlled studies on the efficacy of social distancing either.
Many of the healthcare professionals in the countries that dealt with SARS are calling for universal mask wearing.
I'd much rather trust their intuition and judgement than governments and media outlets passing the buck to the WHO.
> Can't remember seeing any controlled studies on the efficacy of social distancing either.
No, but we have mountains of evidence from respiratory diseases throughout history, including the common cold and seasonal flu, that distancing lowers transmission.
It's why people are encouraged to stay home from work when they are sick, and why in normal situations, people in lines of work where they cannot afford to stay home from work get sick more often.
Social distancing is one of the oldest public health protocols we have for disease transmission control.
Sure, many old practices for disease prevention amount to nothing but old wives tales, but social distancing likely isn't one of them.
They don't have to always work well. If Alice's mask stops half the particles and Bob's mask stops half the particles, the chance of Alice infecting Bob is now 4x lower. 50% is not as good as 95%, but surely better than 0%.
All we need to do is bring the reproductive number below 1, not necessarily all the way to 0.
I've also seen a tendency for people to disregard all of the other social distancing measures now that masks are more common. Squeezing up next to someone to grab a bunch of parsley rather than waiting 5 seconds for them to move on. Tons of face touching from adjusting masks too.
Well, first of all, there were no masks to wear. Not even enough to properly equip all medical personal. But yes, if people would wear masks whenever there is the risk that they are sick, be it Covid-19, the flu or just a cold, it would be beneficial.
You can make them yourself on a sewing machine, or even sewing by hand if you're desperate. My partner and I have made ~20 in some of our spare time in the last three weeks, for ourselves and our close family and friends. It's not high tech.
Didn't even have to go out and buy more materials.
Making your own masks is certainly something many people can do, but also many that can't. But many who can, are doing that now. And slowly the supply of commercial masks is improving here in Germany too. As the lockdown is slowly released, people will be wearing masks and that should help a lot with keeping infection numbers down. And hopefully wearing masks becomes standard now when affected by any kind of infectious disease.
Although only maybe half of the people around where I live are wearing masks of any variety, it doesn't hurt to wear a bandana or a buff or whatever when you go into a store. It probably doesn't do much good but it doesn't hurt and isn't any real effort.
we don't have an aversion to it. Neoliberal governments went out of their way to chastise mask wearing because it would paint a bad picture as they wanted people to actually just die "for the economy".
Also, they are very meticulous about taking their shoes off before going into a home and about keeping their floors clean. Which may be more important, especially in dense locations, than we might be realizing.
No, there's evidence of it on half of the soles of ICU workers' shoes, and they found the virus on the floor of areas where patients were not found. From this they proposed that within the hospital, shoes could be a vector and highly recommend that people disinfect shoe souls before walking out of wards with Covid-19 patients.
There are not any reported cases of the virus infecting anyone by shoe though.
I’m confused/concerned by this as the US authorities are emphasizing that this is a respiratory virus and no need to be concerned about food transmission, etc
The best evidence is that there's no need for the average person to be concerned about food transmission. The hospital context is very different; transmission routes that are normally negligible can start to matter when you have 200 people coughing coronavirus into the air.
They tested in hospital/ICU areas. I think the odds are much higher in such an environment. Obviously medical workers should keep from transferring viral material to their homes, but to imply that this is being transferred by non-medical personnel is inaccurate.
Definitely there is more of the virus in hospitals and in the ICU. The virus is also probably on the floors of subway cars, elevators, and other public places if someone infected emits droplets in those areas.
Of course, I'm only suggesting that the idea of shoes as vectors might be something.
We are richer per capita, the large population of the U.S. should give us economy of scale (for software development etc), and the lower population density should mean less contacts to trace per case. There's no excuse. We passed a 2 trillion dollar coronavirus bill and there's no contact tracing army? Madness.
It's infinitely cheaper than shutting down the economy and the massive ensuing bailouts.
"on the street observations in the article are: masks, masks, masks. "
There is no evidence that masks are a solution.
Just the opposite: contact tracing is definitely a primary driver of success.
We should have enacted aggressive contact tracing and widespread testing a long time ago, and recommended 'surgical/cloth' masks for public but strongly discouraged N95's as there are limited quantities and those need to go to the front lines.
Masks are not meant to solve/prevent Corona. It's meant to slow down the spread of the virus. It needs to be used in combination with other measures such as social distancing.
Unfortunately the Dutch government keeps saying that masks do not help, sometimes they suggest that a mask can make things worse. The reason behind this seems to be to prevent people from stealing masks from hospitals, something that seemed to have happened in every country.
That said, please check the effectiveness of masks. It doesn't need to be perfect, just slow down the spread.
Do we know yet whether the clusters of fatalities among families are due to higher exposure rates or some genotypic susceptibility to the worst effects of the illness?
Or is that just that the family clusters are good news copy (ugh) and over-represented?
Spouses wouldn't necessarily share any genetic susceptibility yet there are plenty of stories of husband and wife pairs dying. Whether these stories are over-represented, like most areas of "proof", is pretty much impossible to say for certain at this point.
You can't top mitigation/supression until there is herd immunity.
You can get the immunity only two ways 1) enough people have been gone trough the disease or 2) vaccination.
South Korea must use mitigation/supression until they have enough people vaccinated or it flares up again. Complete eradication without immunity is not feasible unless you isolate whole country from the rest of the world permanently.
You don't have to completely isolate the country from the world. You just have to do testing and quarantining to ensure that infectious people and things aren't entering the country.
However, the latest cluster in Heilongjiang involved an asymptomatic student returned from USA, completed 14 day quarantine, tested negative before and after, but still went on to infect her family and neighbors who infected more at the hospital. Total confirmed cases in this cluster is ~50 right now.
Most of the spread in this case happened because of negligence in the hospital thinking coronavirus is eradicated there so they didn’t take precautions. Coastal cities like Shanghai are taking good measures so there hasn’t been a problem despite it being where most international flights land and basically 100% back to work for over a month now. The biggest danger is people becoming tired of wearing masks and avoiding gatherings over time.
Sure, but keeping up testing, contact tracing and other South Korea-style suppression measures is no big deal compared to the severe restrictions most other countries have had to implement. It's very troubling to shut down the economy for a whole year, but it's certainly plausible to sustain those measures until a vaccine is ready.
You can still trade with the rest of the world - people are still doing that now, in fact, with international trade being universally exempted from travel bans. But I can't imagine tourism or business travel being compatible with the level of quarantine required to keep an endemic respiratory virus eradicated within your borders.
Wow, that looks really cool. From https://github.com/e1ven/Robohash it looks like there are dozens of components (mouth, nose, etc.) that can be combinatorically assembled, each of which has been hand-drawn, which must've taken a great deal of work on the author's part!
Unfortunately, "most" is not sufficient here. In South Korea the majority of cases were spread through a small handful of church gatherings. Consequently I have come to think that media coverage such as this post is a net benefit to society, although it is undisputable that they cast many innocent people in a bad light.
I don't think it'd be too hard to note that these churches are outliers. The author uses 'some' to cover three churches that are still meeting in person, and 'some' to mention that two other churches are not meeting in person.
Spend a few minutes at http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/database.html, see which one deserves the use of the word "some". Why couldn't the author determine which was more representative and thus accurately portray what most churches are doing? If I'm right and most churches have closed, wouldn't it be more persuasive to read an article that says "everyone who believes what you do is doing this, you should too"?
If 3 out of a sample of 5 are meeting, then they aren't outliers.
I agree, it would have been good to do a proper study, but surely you agree that the fact that these three are open is newsworthy, no? It's not science, it's journalism.
Did you similarly complain about the rigor of all the articles last weekend written about people being irresponsibly crowded in parks and on beaches?
How would you report it then? I mean, I get that you're reading this as an attack on christians, but... my atheist eyes aren't seeing that. I see a short piece with a handful of (mildly horrifying) quotes from these three churches, followed by a note explaining how others are behaving more responsibly. Isn't that how this should be done?
We are used to the news format of presenting some who support side A, and those who are opposed, making it look like there is a balanced case. Seeing these stories makes it feel like we are getting balanced news. This makes for good TV.
However if the two "sides" are unequal, it gives the illusion of evenness when there is no actual equivalence.
You don't see this misrepresentation when it leaves an impression of an even split between churches that follow public health standards and those that don't. You do see this misrepresentation when it leaves the impression that there is a scientific debate about global warming. But the problem is the same in both cases - the format itself leads to systemic misrepresentations of the world.
I get the point, but I still don't see how you would prefer to report the relatively newsworthy fact that these three churches are holding services during a pandemic. How would you have framed the article?
With an opening line of, "Most churches have responded to COVID-19 with measures like live streaming their services. But a few holdouts disregard the dangers..."
This makes it clear that we are now talking about how the crazies view the world. Which slants everything else that people will respond to.
It transforms "those crazy Christians" into "the crazies among the Christians". Which draws a more accurate picture of most Christians.
Fair enough, I'll buy that and agree that this would have been a better headline.
To be fair though, and getting to the point I was teasing: it's very odd to find us having this argument about "implications" about groups in media coverage in defense a a community that is itself rife with equivalently unrepresentative coverage of immigrants, progressives, feminists, etc... All of these groups are constantly made to answer for the crimes of their most extreme members in the right wing press. It just seems a little... off that all of a sudden HN seems to care so much about this kind of journalistic integrity.
You speak of HN as if HN was a single individual with a unified mind.
My opinions are reasonably consistent. However if you try to draw a consistent picture out of a mix of what I say and what others say, you will fail horribly. Sure, I'm happy to point you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE or https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato... to give other viewpoints on how laying everything out as a debate between two sides poisons our society. But I wouldn't expect most of HN to be on board with the strength of my views.
I also don't agree with your characterization of the "HN community". This site usually doesn't report on the coverage of the right wing press. When it does, most commentators seem to lean towards the outlook described in https://www.wired.com/story/political-education-silicon-vall.... Admittedly with outspoken exceptions.
As for me personally, I am a libertarian atheist whose explicit goal is to be right..eventually. In that end I care deeply that my impressions reflect reality, particularly for people that I disagree with. I am painfully aware that natural cognitive biases will lead it to be comfortable for me to accept an echo chamber. I care about the misrepresentation not because I respect Christianity - I don't - but because I care that my thinking correctly represents Christians.
It's also annoying how conservatives use epithets like "snowflake" to describe liberal grievances while being extremely sensitive about their own grievances. But we live in the age of grievance politics. Politicians have figured out that a feeling of being wronged or persecuted is one of the strongest ways to cause a hatred of "the others" and to remove rational thinking.
What's painfully ironic is that he reads it as an "attack" on Christians, when it's actually an ethical brotherly life-affirming attempt to prevent Christians from killing themselves AND other people.
When Christians kill other people or themselves, they go to hell (if you take their believes at face value). They should be THANKFUL to the people who are "attacking" them so they don't kill other people, kill themselves, then go to hell.
With some effort, someone could document which megachurches are holding meatspace services. They could perhaps even do a prospective matched control study.
It's definitely a problem from a public health perspective, and that's why there should be legal measures to stop such large gatherings.
However, these types of articles are often used to cast aspersions on all Christians. That was essential the point of the parent comment. Why single out megachurches? You could find plenty of similar examples in the business, social and government realm of large groups continuing to meet.
Why not? From my observations, megachurches tend to be very different from many other Christian churches, including in theology. Christians aren't all the same, but there are some definite things that many, if not most, megachurches have in common, that they don't share with other denominations. (Starting with "denominations", in fact: megachurches usually don't belong to one.)
The phrase "the Media's stance" refers to the media as a whole, the average of all media. By definition the average will be between the least and the greatest, which means by definition the Media's stance on a topic will always be too P-slanted for Q-ists and too Q-slanted for P-ists.
Fun fact: by the popularized definition in the media, most of your Catholic and Orthodox churches would be "mega churches" as well, despite sharing little in common. They get lumped together statistically, however.
>Though going to church might be the worst of all options since church goers tend to skew more to the older side of the population.
Actually, probably not, which is why "megachurches" is an important qualifier here. From my observations, megachurches tend heavily to be independent and evangelical, and tend to have much younger members. They also tend to have a lot of (Christian) rock music as part of the services. The old people don't join those churches; those people are still in the mainline Protestant churches they've been going to for many decades, which have traditional service, and don't preach to you that God loves rich people more.
It wasn't a small handful of church gatherings, it was spread countrywide by a cult hell bent on recruiting, often via underhanded tactics because people know better than to join them if stated outright. One person got infected, infected a gathering and they dispersed everywhere. Boom.
