
Nobel prize-winning scientist: the Covid-19 epidemic was never exponential - miked85
https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-the-covid-19-epidemic-was-never-exponential/
======
jsnell
There are an amazing number of inaccuracies packed in to this article.

The prediction this professor made about the number of deaths was not at start
of February, like claimed in the article. It was three weeks later, when China
was way past the peak.

The claim that the PFR has converged to the same number everywhere seems
totally unfounded, though it's hard to say for sure given how vague he is
about which regions he is comparing. But e.g. London and NYC are very similar
in size, NYC has more deaths by a large factor.

He claims that the virus will peter out after inflicting one month's worth of
excess deaths. NYC has already had 4-5 months worth of excess mortality, and
are not yet through it. Is he just uninformed or intentionally lying? Hard to
tell.

He claims that R0 is meaningless without also including a measure of how long
a person remains infectious. That makes no sense. The definition of R0 already
includes all the infections over the whole period of infectivity.

------
brenden2
I've had the same opinion since the start of this thing (you can go through my
post history if you want), and I've been astounded at how incredibly unpopular
it is. If you try and point out what's happening with the data, people on
Reddit and elsewhere will attack you.

It's weird how the same people who are touting the lockdown are also saying we
need to "listen to scientists" etc, but they aren't doing that: those people
simply ignore or deny the facts and data which don't agree with their doomsday
hypothesis.

This whole situation is so emotionally charged that it overrides the good
sense of good people.

EDIT: If anyone is a fan of Warren Buffett, you should take some time from
your day to watch the Berkshire meeting from yesterday. I really appreciate
how he puts everything in context with none of the politics:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE)

~~~
s9w
My take: China panicked and so did the west. As it became clear this is
nothing unusual, leaders can't admit such a cataclysmic mistake and double
down. Now many common places for discussion (Twitter and the coronavirus
Reddit for example) are clearly under some form of control and shamelessly
pro-panic. Others go with the flow (HN) which is the same in this case. And as
usual only the uncensored places allow for dissenting opinions.

~~~
brenden2
Maybe so, but I don't think it's China's fault, or the US governments fault
for that matter. I guess it doesn't help that the current administration
doesn't instill a sense of security, but I think the state of things is mostly
caused by the media whipping people into a frenzy. The virus does what it
does, regardless of what the talking heads of state say.

For example, Google was touting how great their YouTube stats were for news
content because people were so hungry for news about coronavirus. So the news
gave people what they want: doomsday all day every day. This corona thing has
been very profitable for media.

While I haven't checked today, I'm sure if you go to the front page of any
mainstream news site all you see is negativity (CNN, NYT, Fox, etc) and
articles about how everything is falling apart.

So, I think if we're to blame anyone, we should first blame ourselves and
second blame the news and their clickbaity-ness.

~~~
s9w
I'm fine with blaming the news first, then the leaders. There is so much
context missing from the reports. When did we ever have counters for other
infectious diseases? Naturally people follow the panic - I did so too at
first.

I did learn a lot about law during this though. In particular how little it
all matters, even the core parts of national constitutions. All overruled,
changed and whatever in days time. Those laws mean nothing.

~~~
brenden2
That's true. The government does what it wants at the end of the day. If they
don't like the laws they can just change them.

------
rogerkirkness
Logistic functions:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function)

------
randall
I've heard this from the same places I usually hear conspiracy theories which
is to say: I don't think this is untrue but it definitely isn't validated or
verified.

Heretics wouldn't be allowed in epidemiological circles, which is why
epidemiologists wouldn't be quick to spout this off, but the question still
begs: what would a time bound have to do with a virus? And is there a proper
comparative a/b case (perhaps in a similar country) to look at? And are there
other viruses that behave this way?

Even shorter: Why would this virus be different than any virus before it? If
it were created in a lab, which some intelligence agencies (and other
conspiracy theorists) believe, could that account for it? Then why?

I'm unconvinced largely by the conspiracy theory, but I also don't necessarily
think it's been convincingly proven false.

------
hyko
Headline: “Nobel prize-winning scientist: the Covid-19 epidemic was never
exponential”

TFA: “After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently,
deaths)...”

~~~
miked85
you might as well quote the entire sentence:

"After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently,
deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve
quickly becomes “sub-exponential”."

~~~
hyko
Not necessary, as my point was the headline is grossly misleading; the Nobel
prize-winning scientist explicitly refutes the claim in the first part of that
sentence.

------
hprotagonist
Damn near everything in the biological world winds up looking sigmoidal. The
question is always “over what timescale”

------
aivisol
> but I think we’ve really screwed up. We’ve caused pollution, we’ve allowed
> the world’s population to increase threefold in my lifetime, we’ve caused
> the problems of global warming and now we’ve left your generation with a
> real mess in order to save a relatively small number of very old people.

I agree with him on this. Just wanted to add that it is mostly at the expense
of children - they are least to blame for all this mess but suffer most. No
friends, no proper school, heck, not even going out with their bicycles or
skateboards for months. I don't think they deserved this and I don't know how
we will ever pay them back.

~~~
dwaltrip
No one "deserved" this pandemic. The universe isn't some sort of cosmic judge.
The laws of nature simply tick forward blindly and ceaselessly, and we make do
as best we can :)

P.S. I'm a compatibilist, so I see no contradictions in this.

------
sonofgod
Transcript of video via autogenerated subtitles:
[https://pastebin.com/P4z71D8W](https://pastebin.com/P4z71D8W)

~~~
sonofgod
> if you have twice as long infectious and half the R 0 you'll get exactly the
> same growth rate (7m15)

uh... no. (I am not an epidemiologist, but neither is he, so...)

R is an estimate of the total infections one person will cause. So if you're
infected for twice as long, and R remains the same, then the growth rate will
be halved. If you also halve R, the growth rate will _also_ be halved.

I don't believe he understands what he's talking about.

------
aaron695
He says a lot of stuff that's all hipster, and also probably true.

BUT this article is about this -

"After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently,
deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve
quickly becomes “sub-exponential”.

This bit implies some sort of God, or the virus has sentience reason for "some
kind of break kicks in"

So unless you want to explain this within the realms of reason, this article
contributes nothing, because this is what it's about.

