The point remains: given that some people have such a different theory, it’s unclear how many supporting pieces of evidence your should expect to see, and it’s important to compare the evidence against the theory to the evidence for it.
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to do here. I feel this is a neglected take and on the margin more people should think about whether this theory is true, given the stakes.
Presumably some of these people are hypochondriacs or have the flu? Also, I bet people with symptoms are more likely to use the app.
With all due respect it’s not that hard to get data that you yourself find convincing, even if you’re a professor.
“”Our first analysis showed we’re picking up roughly that one in 10 have the classical symptoms,” he said. “So of the 650,000, we would expect to see 65,000 cases.
“Although you can have problems of self-selection and bias, when you’ve got big data like this you tend to trust it more. What we’re seeing is a lot of mild symptoms, so I think having this data should help people relax a bit more and stop seeing it as an all or nothing Black Death situation.
“Other symptoms are cropping up. Thousands of people are coming forward to say they have loss of taste, and we may start to see clusters of symptoms.”″
They do meet more different populations of people though. So if a small number of cities have relatively widespread infection, people who visit many cities are unusually likely to get infected.
You’d expect to see people to many severe cases amongst people who travelled for business a lot in January and February.
Not likely. About 1% of Icelanders without symptoms test positive, and all the stats on which tested people are asymptomatic that I’ve seen (Iceland, Diamond Princess) give about 1⁄2 asymptomatic at time of testing (presumably many later get sick).
Yes, [comparing the evidence against the theory to the evidence for it is] what I’m trying to do here.
It looks more like you listed all the evidence you could find for the theory and didn’t do anything else.
Although you can have problems of self-selection and bias, when you’ve got big data like this you tend to trust it more.
I don’t think this is actually how selection effects work.
You’d expect to see people to many severe cases amongst people who travelled for business a lot in January and February.
Those people are less famous so you wouldn’t necessarily hear about them.
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here.
That the asymptomatic rate isn’t all that high, and in at least one population where everybody could get a test, you don’t see a big fraction of the population testing positive.
It looks more like you listed all the evidence you could find for the theory and didn’t do anything else.
That was precisely my ambition here—as highlighted in the title (“The case for c19 being widespread”). I did not claim that this was an even-handed take. I wanted to consider the evidence for a theory that only very few smart people believe. I think such an exercise can often be useful.
I don’t think this is actually how selection effects work.
The professor acknowledges that there are problems with self-selection, but given that there are very specific symptoms (thousands of people with loss of smell), I don’t think that selection effects can describe all the the data. Then he just argues for the Central Limit Theorem.
That the asymptomatic rate isn’t all that high, and in at least one population where everybody could get a test, you don’t see a big fraction of the population testing positive.
There’s no random population wide testing antibody testing as of yet.
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to do here. I feel this is a neglected take and on the margin more people should think about whether this theory is true, given the stakes.
“”Our first analysis showed we’re picking up roughly that one in 10 have the classical symptoms,” he said. “So of the 650,000, we would expect to see 65,000 cases.
“Although you can have problems of self-selection and bias, when you’ve got big data like this you tend to trust it more. What we’re seeing is a lot of mild symptoms, so I think having this data should help people relax a bit more and stop seeing it as an all or nothing Black Death situation.
“Other symptoms are cropping up. Thousands of people are coming forward to say they have loss of taste, and we may start to see clusters of symptoms.”″
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/monitoring-app-suggests-65-million-people-uk-may-already-have/
You’d expect to see people to many severe cases amongst people who travelled for business a lot in January and February.
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here.
It looks more like you listed all the evidence you could find for the theory and didn’t do anything else.
I don’t think this is actually how selection effects work.
Those people are less famous so you wouldn’t necessarily hear about them.
That the asymptomatic rate isn’t all that high, and in at least one population where everybody could get a test, you don’t see a big fraction of the population testing positive.
That was precisely my ambition here—as highlighted in the title (“The case for c19 being widespread”). I did not claim that this was an even-handed take. I wanted to consider the evidence for a theory that only very few smart people believe. I think such an exercise can often be useful.
The professor acknowledges that there are problems with self-selection, but given that there are very specific symptoms (thousands of people with loss of smell), I don’t think that selection effects can describe all the the data. Then he just argues for the Central Limit Theorem.
There’s no random population wide testing antibody testing as of yet.