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?

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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 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.

Thanks!

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 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.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22790303

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud

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.