Read on Twitter
i am not an epidemiology expert
i just thought someone on twitter should say this at some point
that said, i do know a fair bit about biotech, data, & have a lot of experience dealing with incomplete, contradictory, and inaccurate information in the "fog of war" that is markets
i just thought someone on twitter should say this at some point
that said, i do know a fair bit about biotech, data, & have a lot of experience dealing with incomplete, contradictory, and inaccurate information in the "fog of war" that is markets
my take on coronavirus:
this is like watching someone crash a ferrari into a tree while swerving to miss a squirrel.
like driving, it is often the over-reaction to a threat that does the real damage.
there is simply no definitive evidence that this disease is unusually deadly
this is like watching someone crash a ferrari into a tree while swerving to miss a squirrel.
like driving, it is often the over-reaction to a threat that does the real damage.
there is simply no definitive evidence that this disease is unusually deadly
there is just a bunch of people running around social media making one another hysterical with terms like R0 that they had never even heard a week ago.
we have zero idea what corona R0 is. we lack even the most rudimentary data and what we do have is being misused.
we have zero idea what corona R0 is. we lack even the most rudimentary data and what we do have is being misused.
this idea that coronovirsus is 100 or 1000X as deadly as flu is unfounded. it comes from comparing bad apples to good oranges.
if you look only at people who come to a hospital with symptoms, OF COURSE fatality is higher. maybe it is 2% for corona.
if you look only at people who come to a hospital with symptoms, OF COURSE fatality is higher. maybe it is 2% for corona.
but that's basically half of what the flu is for hospital admissions.
the error is is comparing corona deaths in hospitalizations with flu deaths from total population infected.
we have good models and stats for flu, we have NONE for corona. most cases are not diagnosed.
the error is is comparing corona deaths in hospitalizations with flu deaths from total population infected.
we have good models and stats for flu, we have NONE for corona. most cases are not diagnosed.
china does not even have tests available to test widely.
but if this disease had a 3.0 R0 and killed 2% of people who get it, there would be piles of bodies in wuhan that were visible from space.
infection rates are probably very high. cases are just generally more mild
but if this disease had a 3.0 R0 and killed 2% of people who get it, there would be piles of bodies in wuhan that were visible from space.
infection rates are probably very high. cases are just generally more mild
millions of people have probably had this, not tens of thousands.
300 have died. the flu kills about 400,000 globally each year.
this is not a bioweapon. this is probably not as dangerous as SARS.
what is dangerous is panic.
that's where the real damage comes from.
300 have died. the flu kills about 400,000 globally each year.
this is not a bioweapon. this is probably not as dangerous as SARS.
what is dangerous is panic.
that's where the real damage comes from.
"then why is china acting like this!?! they must know something!"
oh, really? they are immune to panic and stupidity? if so, they are the one society on earth
china is a totalitarian state founded on societal fealty/order.
if they catch a whiff of panic, they lock it down
oh, really? they are immune to panic and stupidity? if so, they are the one society on earth
china is a totalitarian state founded on societal fealty/order.
if they catch a whiff of panic, they lock it down
the fact that they could miscalculate this badly and wind up doubling and trebling the panic is somewhat surprising, but it's also unstoppable once it starts.
you cannot start a lockdown then release it.
they are locked into this course now and will have to see it through.
you cannot start a lockdown then release it.
they are locked into this course now and will have to see it through.
but take a breath and ask yourself which is actually more credible:
that this is some bioweapon/plague that they are trying to hide or that some humans had a bad overreaction to some misleading early info and panicked?
that this is some bioweapon/plague that they are trying to hide or that some humans had a bad overreaction to some misleading early info and panicked?
every dingbat VC and armchair epidemiologist faces a one way bet here:
claim it'll be awful and maybe you win and look prescient.
if you're wrong, no one will remember. the next news cycle will swallow your pants wetting proclamations.
it's a one sided bet.
claim it'll be awful and maybe you win and look prescient.
if you're wrong, no one will remember. the next news cycle will swallow your pants wetting proclamations.
it's a one sided bet.
and the media mavens know this. news outlets love panic, it sells papers/attracts eyeballs.
crisis porn and fomenting hysteria is their literal stock in trade.
it's their business model.
and when it sets off a real live crisis because of the panic, that's even better for them
crisis porn and fomenting hysteria is their literal stock in trade.
it's their business model.
and when it sets off a real live crisis because of the panic, that's even better for them
corona IS likely to have global economic effects, but not from the disease. it's the response that's doing that.
had we just run over the squirrel instead of swerving into a tree, this would barely have registered.
had we just run over the squirrel instead of swerving into a tree, this would barely have registered.
had people applied this forensic analysis to this year's flu, predictions of global depopulation would have been rife.
look, i could be wrong, but thus far, there is just NO factual evidence that this is a major global health threat and such evidence as we have implies it's not
look, i could be wrong, but thus far, there is just NO factual evidence that this is a major global health threat and such evidence as we have implies it's not
it's all circumstantial evidence that is using the fact that someone panicked to justify panicking.
it's circular and feeding on itself.
you might as well put on your tinfoil and claim this is a psy-ops warfare exercise from china to tank the global economy.
it's circular and feeding on itself.
you might as well put on your tinfoil and claim this is a psy-ops warfare exercise from china to tank the global economy.
let's all take a breath here folks.
ask yourself an honest question: do you or any of the prolific pandemic pundits of the twitterverse really understand any of this?
is there any remotely useful data on how many people have had the virus to use even if you/they did?
ask yourself an honest question: do you or any of the prolific pandemic pundits of the twitterverse really understand any of this?
is there any remotely useful data on how many people have had the virus to use even if you/they did?
unless you are very sure you have the data, panic is probably more dangerous than coronavirus.
