Ramiro P.


Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


When Hindsight Isn't 20/20: Incentive Design With Imperfect Credit Allocation

Strict liability in tort law seems to be a pretty obvious example, doesn't it? I mean, I guess a lot of corporate law can be seen as "vicariously holding a group accountable"

April Coronavirus Open Thread

I've seen news about this study, but no preprint. It'd be really helpful if we could get it.

What will happen to supply chains in the era of COVID-19?

I'm more concerned with developing countries, particularly if they depend on international trade for food. Also, their goods are mainly transported by truck drivers travelling long distances, who may opportunistically demand better working conditions. In Brazil, they threatened to stop working, thus reminding everyone of a strike in 2018 that caused supply problems in major cities. Fortunately, they reconsidered it after the government started a mediatic campaign to make them feel valued.

April Coronavirus Open Thread

Does anyone have any idea / info on what proportion of the infected cases are getting Covid19 inside hospitals? This seems to have been a real issue for previous coronavirus.

I'd say there might be a stark difference between countries / regions in this area. Italian health workers seem to have taken a heavy blow. Also, 79 deaths in Brazil (total: 200) came from only one Hospital chain/ health insurer, which focus on aging customers (so, yeah, maybe it's just selection bias?).

(Epistemic status: low, but I didin't find any research on that after 30min, so maybe the hypothesis deserves a bit more of attention?)

Preprint says R0=~5 (!) / infection fatality ratio=~0.1%. Thoughts?

I noticed CDC claims 9 deaths from Diamond Princess, but I didn't find support in their source. WHO is still counting 8 deaths. I guess you're right, but I'd appreciate if you could provide the source.

They write "at the time of testing." The study I cite followed up with what happened to patients.

I know that. If you follow this discussion up to the beginning, you'll see that all I'm claiming is that the number of documented cases has been affected by selective bias, because asymptomatic / pre-symptomatic etc. cases are unlikely to be diagnosed.

Finally, I believe we both agree the current IFR is underestimating the true death rate, because many patients are still fighting for their lives. Actually, the authors of the preprint are not complete morons and estimate the "time-delayed IFR" in 0.12% (which I agree is too low), and make the following remark to explain the higher mortality in Wuhan:

These findings indicate that the death risk in Wuhan is estimated to be much higher than those in other areas, which is likely explained by hospital-based transmission [32]. Indeed, past nosocomial outbreaks have been reported to elevate the CFR associated with MERS and SARS outbreaks, where inpatients affected by underlying disease or seniors infected in the hospital setting have raised the CFR to values as high as 20% for a MERS outbreak.

I'm not saying this study is right. I'm just saying that, unless someone points a methodological flaw, "their conclusion is too different" is not a reason to discard it.

Preprint says R0=~5 (!) / infection fatality ratio=~0.1%. Thoughts?

Maybe CDC screwed their data, but they say 46.5% of the Diamond Princess cases were asymptomatic when tested: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm?s_cid=mm6912e3_w

I believe this might be a confusion between asymptomatic and pre/mildly symptomatic - but whatever: the claim at stake is that there's a ton of undocumented cases out there, not that they're asymptomatic

Preprint says R0=~5 (!) / infection fatality ratio=~0.1%. Thoughts?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I understood the relevance of asymptomatic : symptomatic ratio here. I think what's at stake in this article is the ratio undocumented : documented cases; it'll include not only asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic or mildly symptomatic people, but people who got really sick but couldn't be tested until Hubei had largely improved their testing capabilities.

I do think a 50:1 rate is surprising, though not impossible.

If 50% of the cases in South Korea are asymptomatic and so don't get tested, their true death rate would be ~0.4-0.5%; if you add people who got sick before their testing capability was improved, etc., it may be lower. But again, I really prefer to be pessimistic in my death rates.

Preprint says R0=~5 (!) / infection fatality ratio=~0.1%. Thoughts?

True, but Diamond Princess is full of oldies, and, despite South Korea massive testing, there might be selection bias - I guess people would only get tested if they had some symptom or contact with other infected persons (perhaps you're referring a more specific study?). Notice that, if the science study claiming 86% of the cases in Wuhan were undocumented were right, this would already imply a fatality rate of about 0.6%, below South Korea estimates.

Yet, I agree the fatality rate is surprisingly low, and it's just a statistical model.

How much delay do you generally have between having a good new idea and sharing that idea publicly online?

My average is a week, I guess. I only share ideas I can't falsify or take out of my head; and I try them with close friends first. And I admit I'm kinda sensitive to negative feedback.

Load More