Before you read this piece by Peter Earle at the American Institute for Economic Research you might want to recall John Kenneth Galbraith’s famous wisecrack that the only purpose of economic projections was to make astrology look respectable. Otherwise it’s a good piece:
As data accrues on both a national and state-by-state basis, the parameters of COVID-19’s lethality is firming up. Two new papers from Dr. John Ioannidis point to the growing shortfall between apocalyptic pandemic predictions and the vastly more destructive policies implemented in observance of them.
The flaws identified include inadequacies in the data, bad assumptions (particularly the assumption of homogeneity which I have been complaining about for months), that the estimates were not robust, that the evidence on available interventions was weak, dimensionality (not taking enough factors into account), and bandwagon effects.
Mr. Earle concludes:
What can economists teach epidemiologists? When it comes to forecasting, humility is key and discretion is the better part of valor. If in a position of power or influence, don’t be afraid to bore politicians to death. Be aware, and remain aware, of the utter unpredictability of human action. And always, above all, remain mindful that the presence of even one human being (and more realistically, millions) introduces complexities which are difficult to predict and virtually impossible to simulate.
Offhand I’d say that humility on the part of both economists and epidemiologists would be well-deserved. Such humility is valuable, probably because it’s in such limited supply.
The profession that totally missed the 2008 worldwide crash? Please. The epidemiologists actually did make very wide projections based upon many factors. It has been false and remains false that they predicted only very large numbers. Note that the author mixes celebrity physicians with epidemiologists. Politicians with epidemiologists. Overall, a really awful self serving piece.
Steve
As an aside, Ioannidis is correct. It is much easier to make predictions later when you actually know much more about the disease.
So we have 1% of the US population testing positive. Or do we? Asymptomatic cases could increase that figure by ten, one talking head explained today. So say we do have 10% of our population infected, dead, or recovered. What in the world does that mean?
As nearly as I can tell, it’s still all guesswork. There’s a viral bogyman out there. Be very careful. Or not. I don’t know what to compare the risk factor to.
In 1918-19, many people died, most did not. If that’s even a good model.
Humility? Got that.
I think the most humbling is the realization no matter what you do or don’t, you will die. I don’t mean, oh, yeah, someday. I mean could very well be today.
In Illinois the test positivity rate has been around 5% for quite a while, even as the number of tests per day increased sharply. It’s not proof positive, of course, but since the people who are getting tests are people who suspect something (practically by definition) I doubt that the true positivity rate here is a lot higher than that.
My guess is that the true positivity rate will vary a lot from place to place. Might be 25% in New York City and 1% in Utqiagvik, Alaska.
In 1918 70% of people did not get the disease at all and 27 of the 30% who got it survived. That’s pretty virulent and it’s hard to disaggregate the virulence of the disease from improvements in care.
My brother is on day 6 in the hospital with Covid, on high flow O2. In 1918 nothing even close to that was available. He would have likely stroked, had an MI or died.
OT- Cowen linked to a philosopher who had a nice piece on “cancel culture” that was interesting and much more than the typical whining we see about the topic. I think it really points out that the problem lies largely with employers. Free speech requires that you allow both the initial speech and then the response. It is the action after, the firing/demotion/whatever that has changed. Why do employers seem to do that more often now? (As was pointed out in the piece there is a paucity of research of this to compare with historical standards.) Also, as noted in comments, it looks as though employers are often responding to fairly small interest groups who once they have learner they have power continue to attack.
Steve
As I have said on this blog before, we will have learned how to effectively treat COVID-19 around the time it ceases to be a threat to human health. And any knowledge retained from this experience will either be lost by the time the next epidemic comes around or be useless because the new pathogen will attack people in markedly different ways.
Steve: Sorry to hear about your brother. Hope he pulls through and suffers no long term effects.
Cancel Culture: I read an article on the UK on-line magazine called the Critic where a crusty ex-academic was complaining about what he calls the new ruling elite, the ‘mangies’, or the managerial class (I would call them bureaucrats or middle management) who he considers to be craven cowards whose main interest is protecting their sinecures and the pensions. The more I thought about it the more I agreed with some of his premises, especially the way academics have been taken over by the administrative blob, and how that blob has turned to subservient appeasing jelly in the face of shrill unreasoning assaults on free speech, debate, and inquiry. FYI:
https://thecritic.co.uk/at-last-i-get-to-join-the-class-war/