(no subject)
May. 22nd, 2020 10:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ny_quantДобавление ко вчерашнему:
the data in Figure 2 shows a decrease in infection rates after countries eased national lockdowns with >99% statistical significance""
the data in Figure 2 shows a decrease in infection rates after countries eased national lockdowns with >99% statistical significance""
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 03:33 pm (UTC)Most new medicines pass pretty rigorous double blind testing. If it is something important or life threatening, I would definitely review the literature.
> On this level, everything we "know" at this time are varieties of garbage. But these charts provoke most decisive rejection for some reason.
It is not quite true. Most models are indeed garbage, but we know for sure that the virus needs physical contact or physical proximity to propagate. Therefore lockdowns are pretty much guaranteed to decrease the spread.
Thus the narrative being built on these graphs must be incorrect. Without knowing what is being measured, it is not possible to provide any alternative interpretation though.
I feel you are thinking too much in liberal/conservative terms. We just need to look at the data and combine it with what we know to come to reasonable conclusions.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 03:49 pm (UTC)That's a false narrative. Lockdown is not one measure it's a complex of measures. Some are effective some may be not. The point is that relaxing of ineffective measures is a win-win.
// I feel you are thinking too much in liberal/conservative terms.
Maybe but I disagree.
// We just need to look at the data and combine it with what we know to come to reasonable conclusions.
This is exactly the goal of the exercise. And then some people reject the reasonable conclusions because they contradict their priors or political views.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 03:58 pm (UTC)> That's a false narrative. Lockdown is not one measure it's a complex of measures. Some are effective some may be not.
You should think about lockdowns as a complex of measures designed to decrease physical contact. Some of them are effective, some are not. Lockdown as a whole slows the viral spread.
> The point is that relaxing of ineffective measures is a win-win.
Sure. Even effective measures may have to be relaxed if the cost of maintaining them is too high.
> And then some people reject the reasonable conclusions because they contradict their priors or political views.
Perhaps. Personally I don't have any political views about the virus. My only prior is what we know from physics, biology and mathematics.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 05:55 pm (UTC)Correct but it doesn't follow that lockdowns as implemented are the optimal way to do it. In fact, the data suggests that the implementation was excessively strict.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-23 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 04:01 pm (UTC)If you don't interact with people, you would not get the virus, no?
no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 04:05 pm (UTC)Also - why prohibit leaving home which does not involve interacting with other people - parks, forests?
no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 04:10 pm (UTC)> Also - why prohibit leaving home which does not involve interacting with other people - parks, forests?
Beats me.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 05:53 pm (UTC)But it is part of the point: excessive ineffective measures that I mentioned above.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-23 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-05-23 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-05-23 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-05-23 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-05-23 07:27 pm (UTC)впрочем, тесты херовы.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-23 07:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-05-23 07:57 pm (UTC)