3 comments

[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 12.4 ms ] thread
"For example, with 1,000 60-year-olds infected with the old variant, 10 of them might be expected to die. But this rises to around 13 with the new variant.

This difference is found when looking at everyone testing positive for Covid, but analysing only hospital data has found no increase in the death rate."

The sample size used is close to worthless, and the data used to make the statement is selective. These kinds of speculative statements that involve several layers of uncertainty are super frustrating.

It's not even remotely actionable information for the average person reading it, and essentially does nothing but stoke more anxiety.

We don't know so let's spread some fear so we can keep people at home. I understand the strategy but I don't agree with the method.
Yeah, maybe. I dunno.

For the last few months, below Youtube's regular recommendations there's been a selection of the most scary Covid headlines their algorithms could find. "super deadly strain found ..." "vaccine side effects..." "scientists warn vaccine may not be effective...". I guess the recommendation engine discovered that fearmongering gets people to click, but it's hard to take it seriously. Since it clearly only selects for the most alarming news, I assume that it lands far on the alarmist end of reality and therefore I should discount whatever it says.