HN user
The CDC is currently saying that this virus has an R0 of 5.7. Couple that with the many cases of casual spread (e.g. people who have gotten it with people they have barely interacted with), and the contrarian claims by this German study seem farcical.
It's a two page summary. Note that this, and the accompanying press conference (with professional PR team) are it. That is the entirety of the details they have released.
"The guy is not known for junk science"
Junk science can come from people not known for junk science. And in the end we rack it up to a technical fault (e.g. a test for coronavirus antibodies that cannot distinguish between many of the several other coronavirus infections that spread during the winter), the way participants were enrolled, etc. That's why there is a peer review process.
And this study bizarrely was released with a press conference and a press conference, yet perilously little actual methodology or useful information for the scientific community to critique. Oh and with a professional PR firm. And it uses this to promote significant changes in public policy! (e.g. relax the restrictions because our two page summary gives some conclusions that are entirely contrary to the entire world of experts)
It's all extraordinarily weird.
And again, it has only made waves online. Among the medical professionals, virologists, etc...crickets.
Just to be clear, HN would normally laugh nonsense like this off the site -- a PR "study" that has zero peer review, that goes against all conventional wisdom, that is not acknowledged or credited by any other expert in the field. Has this site gone absolutely stupid?
The CDC is now estimating the R0 at 5.7, which is really high, and seems much more likely given the extremely rapid spread in areas like NYC.
"According to the Heinsberg Study in Germany"
This study and its conclusions have seen close to universal dismissal. It can't even demonstrate that it is actually detecting SARS-CoV-2 immunity (it was claiming results before anyone had even demonstrated effective tests for relevant antibodies), and not any of the many variations of coronavirus that spread during the colder months (yet which offer no immunity to SARS-CoV-2).
The claims about shopping are...unsupported and go contrary to an enormous volume of evidence (namely the high R0).
It isn't a good example of anything except that junk science has a moment to shine in a crisis.
EDIT: LOL, -2. This is the moment I delete my account and find slightly less stupid venues to participate in. Cheers.
"with the added features of less control from the developers"
Given that this is an additional option for developers, this is pretty tenuous logic. You seem to be arguing against developers having this option by claiming that it restricts their options.
"and locked to just one platform"
I'm fairly sure making one of these apps doesn't suddenly restrict every other option. You can make Android and Web Apps and J2EE (if it still exists) to your hearts content!
This is actually a convenient conversation because I just spent thirty minutes thinking about how much of an absolute piece of shit the Steam app is, courtesy of all of the elements that are a thin wrapper around a web app. And this has pretty much always been the experience: we're all just waiting for the magic web app that's going to prove everyone wrong and light the path.
Still hasn't come.
But until then, I'd rather developers actually have options, including high performance, native, platform-suitable solutions. My only knee-jerk opposition to these Instant App style solutions (the Android version, not sure what the Apple one will be called) is the thought of a big, fat binary coming down just to view what you think is a web page...and then I remember how absolutely monstrous the overwhelming majority of web apps are now. Full native apps are absolute svelte in comparison.
Fascinating. Thank you for sharing.
How do you mean? This Apple design looks very different from any that I can find attributed to "Prusa" (not sure if that's a person or a company, but the company put out 3D print designs that are very different). And all of them, of course, copy shields that were out long before the current crisis.
A lot of people were prototyping shields to satisfy a sudden and overwhelming demand, and with 3D printers it seemed like dozens of variations appeared overnight. I don't think attribution is a big concern.
"How far are we going to be under projected death counts for Covid? A factor of 1000?"
What do you think the projection was?
The US has tragically seen 12,242 deaths (which is an undercount, but it's the authoritative number right now). There are over a thousand deaths a day adding onto that.
Did someone predict 12 million deaths? No, they didn't.
The absolute worst-case projection was 2 million deaths if there were zero reduction steps taken. Maybe you haven't noticed, but society is basically shut down. The spread has dramatically slowed. With extreme social distancing the US is on target for 100,000-200,000 deaths. This is a good thing relative to much more dire outcomes possible. Note that this happened at the state level with zero federal leadership. Quite contrary, with constant federal pushback.
Not sure where your "factor of 1000" nonsense comes from. I assume from the echo chambers where you're fed your pablum.
"I can’t imagine having my identity so wrapped in Trump losing the election that I would be hoping for hundreds of thousand dead and the failure of the American health care system"
No one celebrates the extraordinary and unending failures of this administration. We protest it. We argue against it. We see a horrendous rise of idiocracy as people celebrate their own incredible ignorance and hate.
That it's bad for you doesn't make it "good" for us.
If a miracle cure was discovered today and not a single extra person died, that will never undo the raw criminality, and total, complete incompetence of the Trump administration.
That Jared Kushner has a role greater than mail room is a fucking travesty. Hey, but what about her emails, right?
"Did the news about the death counts flattening and missing projections by a lot today bum you out?"
Social distancing works. This surprises positively no one. Your orange buffoon, however, wants to stop social distancing. Maybe there's some miracle snake oil he can pitch and everything will be great again.
Go back to Twitter. Go back to your insular echo chamber. Your trolling, copy-paste noise just makes you look like a clown here.
Germany is up to 1.76% now.
Wait, wasn't your "but orange man bad" classic twitter response good enough? Why'd you edit it?
"When it was risky for him to do so."
Trump just got a get out of jail free card and absolute impunity and immunity to do anything he wanted. Since he's fired a number of people in the most brazen display of corruption in US history. Risky? There was zero risk.
Yes, orange man is bad. He's historically bad. He is a thin-skinned grifter who is positively the worst possible person to be in this position.
Oh but look he did an easy, lazy partial, regional restriction that accomplished positively nothing. What a savior.
You claimed that there were countless videos of "MSNBC and CNN criticizing the travel ban on China because the virus wasn't any more dangerous than the flu." Which of course isn't accurate.
You seek your redemption in some guy[1] listing a tiny selection of articles, having nothing to do with the partial travel restriction, arguing about the social effects. He links either contrarian articles, or articles talking about the psychology/sociology.
That you think this proves the case is astonishing. I am going to say again that you are either so profoundly partisan that the truth doesn't matter, or you are logically broken.
It's the classic deflection, and it's absolutely amazing. Fox was literally at war with what they saw as the "mainstream media hoax" (in lockstep with Trump, of course, because they are his state media), claiming that they were fear-mongering about the virus. Oh but now, the mainstream media actually wasn't at all. They were understating it. The cognitive deficiency to seriously argue this...
[1] That guy whose post history is littered with claims that the response to SARS-CoV-2 is "fear-mongering", and who a month ago seriously said that the US response was and is the best, of anyone. Their single example being that Trump limited air travel from a single region...for non-Americans...long after the horse was out of the barn.
Then again, your history has continual COVID denial, such as your claim that no hospitals are over capacity. You guys are really trying to argue everything simultaneously and it must be exhausting.
This is no longer active, so please disregard
Thanks!
This is the sort of false equivalency that leads to claims that they all lie, so it's okay if Fox egregiously lies. We see this on HN all the time where someone stomps their feet and cries about a news headline that they think doesn't convey just the right slant that they want, ergo it's the same as the guy inventing bullshit conspiracy theories on his blog.
No, they weren't "chastising" Trump over the China travel ban because there was no China travel ban. There was a Wuhan restriction only applicable to foreigners. Thousands of Americans were going and coming with no restrictions whatsoever. Fly into Wuhan, lick the toilet seats, fly back home. Do it the next day.
There was zero screening. Zero containment. Zero listening to the pandemic experts.
No, they aren't the same. This revisionist "they were dismissing the virus" nonsense is utter horseshit of the worst kind. It is a lie of profound ignorance and gullibility, or an intentional lie, and both are just as obnoxious.
"They have no motive to supply false data, and lots of reasons to make it accurate."
They are working with garbage data. They know this. They admit it. Then they rationalize that they can invent real data out of it. And as an exercise that is okay -- they state exactly what they are doing with very limited, poor data. They haven't claimed it was more than it is.
This is not the canonical statement on death rates, and compared to actual emerging data is completely irrelevant.
"are also authors of the Imperial study that has significantly influenced the UK government response"
The catastrophic and flippant UK response? The one that thought they would obtain some "herd immunity" by doing nothing, and then realizing cases were skyrocketing mimicked what other countries were doing? That UK?
This is not a compelling claim.
It was an incredibly damaging one-off that has killed children. Clearly the vast majority of their work is worlds better than that, but I was replying to the appeal to authority that demands respect and belief for a work that itself purports to be nothing more than a very rough estimate.
Nonetheless, this piece isn't "thoroughly checked" because there is nothing to check. They took the deficient data from China and added suppositions to it. It's neat, I guess, but meaningless.
This paper is not being taken as authoritative anywhere. No one is making policy decisions on it. Zero ground-truth is changing because of it. Because it's a cursory, superficial guesstimate (that is literally the most accurate word) just to appease curiosity.
"And remember -- The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. They're not going to publish something "junk"."
This isn't a peer reviewed paper. It's an extremely brief summary piece based upon a complete absence of evidence and then suppositions.
And to what the guy above said, the Lancet infamously published Wakefield's since debunked repeatedly claim that MMR vaccines cause autism. A paper that has literally led to many deaths.
Indeed, today it is 1.5%. 7 days ago it was 0.75%. 14 days ago it was 0.375%. It has literally doubled each week.
"As a comparison, Germany has a <2% fatality rate"
Germany's good numbers may not hold.
20 days ago Germany had 7256 cases. Italy had 27977.
10 days ago Germany had 37307 cases. Italy had 74383.
0 days ago Germany had 96076 cases. Italy had 124629.
The point being that Germany saw the outbreak take hold considerably after Italy. Italy had a very low original death rate as well -- approximately 2% weeks into the outbreak. This virus takes weeks to kill most of its victims.
14 days ago Germany had a death rate of 0.375%.
7 days ago, Germany had a death to case rate of 0.75%.
Today it's at 1.5%. It has increased every day between.
The fact that Italy is a hyper-social society, while Germany, at least from my probably wrong foreign view, is quite the opposite, probably changed the path of the disease, accelerating its spread in Italy.
It is based upon Chinese data that we know is effectively junk, to which they add pure speculation: The methodology for determining those infected but not symptomatic is complete guesswork. It is invented rationalization atop garbage data.
A few countries are starting mid-sized randomized studies to look for antibodies in the general public and that will give us a much better idea of the scope.
To which it should be noted that already there is fake news spreading making broad claims that they already discovered XYZ (saw one atop Reddit).
I realize there are China sympathists on HN, however it is widely known and acknowledged that China has been very deceptive about the scale of the outbreak and the number of deaths.
Chemistry is absolutely fascinating. One of my long-time goals has been to make a learning chemistry game of some sort. Players building bonds and molecules, solving problems by creating reactions, etc. Orbits and ions and quantum states.
Something truly educational, and of course one of the people I wanted to educate was myself by forcing myself to learn much more than my high-school level of chemistry.
I've gone down this road a few times, each time giving up on the absolutely scale of even the most rudimentary understanding.
I don't think anyone heralded it as revolutionary. It's an affordance to the reality that it's a different experience using devices in darkness than in brightness. Mobile screens make dark situations more prevalent.
As to UI customization, often that was an inconvenient cop out not a great enabler. "We don't want to figure this out so just change things yourself, but then you'll switch PCs or reinstall and you'll lose all of those customizations and you'll never do it again and you will forever leave everything vanilla".
Is it worth websites making a big deal about? No, not really... At most it should put a little badge when it detects the dark mode CSS allowing unwilling users to disable it, but it doesn't seem like something that gets dragged on as long as it has by a couple of sites.
In outbreak areas, total morbidity increases by multiples to magnitudes during the peak (despite enormous, historic measures of containment). Areas with processions of army trucks full of bodies, or the defense department bringing in refrigeration trucks.
"But what about the co-morbidity?". People don't die "of" COVID-19. They have heart failure, kidney failure, or other triggers of death because COVID-19 pushes their body to the limit. Pointing to resources that claim that "only" some small percentage actually died of COVID-19 is pure ignorance, because then the declaring doctor was simply being efficient because if they truly looked in there would be another triggered cause of death. Just as no one died of "AIDS", they died of things like Kaposi sarcoma, but if someone said "see, it wasn't AIDS at all" they would be laughed out of the room.
The majority of deaths are people who are health compromised in some other way (not all deaths, and there have been an abundant number of completely healthy people who have perished), but that is known by everyone and is not news, nor does it diminish the tragedy.
"no statistical extrapolation"
This is the most interesting, and ridiculous, claim of all. Enormous statistical measures and extrapolations are being done daily...that's how we are where we are. What is this meaningless claim even trying to say, other than that you, easytiger, know more than every health authority.
Your post seems a little over the top.
Millions are still using Zoom. Its shares are still trading at an enormous premium.
The technical discussion is something altogether different, and people are allowed to have that, regardless of your consternation. And hopefully a better product comes out of it.
"if you use the definition of e2e in the article, nothing apple does is e2e either"
This bit of sad whataboutism is technical nonsense, though. No, Apple, and a number of other vendors, actually do this right.
I honestly think Zoom's engineers, who have made a number of rudimentary serious technical blunders, thought "end-to-end encryption" meant "it's encrypted during every stage of transport". I've seen a number of companies make this mistake.
You can send a single stream with E2E, just as your can send a PGP message to multiple recipients. Each packet/bundle/whatever has the decrypt key encrypted against each of the recipient keys.
If it failed in a way it can fail in the real world, ideally with examples, then there should be no problem. If the movie doesn't extrapolate and effectively libel the brand with untruths (e.g. they all do this, this is normal, etc), there should be zero problem with it.
Brands, music, trends, etc, are always a street with two-sides, yet we act like there is only one side worth consideration. e.g. These things are the part of our lives as well, and we made them what they are, so there is shared consideration, which is exactly what this judgment is saying.
Location: Toronto (well, Burlington)
Remote: Only
Technologies: Full stack, C#, C++, Swift, most web techs.
CV: https://dennisforbes.ca/articles/about.html
Email: dforbes@yafla.com
I have my own products (iOS apps and a SAAS play) and only work on other people's stuff part-time time to maintain diversity and sharpness in my universe of technology, and importantly to keep engaged with other people when otherwise I could go months without talking to anyone professionally.
If it's planning, consulting, advising, implementation, laying groundwork, analysis, integration, data-focused, I'd love to help.
It's impossible to make these sorts of judgments without an understanding of what the end goal is. What the off ramp of Coronavirus town is in best and worst cases.
e.g. If a vaccine is realistically a year off (which is realistic, though we clutch onto every bit of preliminary news when in reality most are failures), in the relatively near term we will start to all have to take more risks, and the majority of us will go through COVID-19.