Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Someone1234 1862 days ago
If the larger public could read and understanding the underlying data in the way you're proposing then the CDC's guidance isn't of importance. Since they won't/can't, the public depend on/trust the CDC's guidance, who were intentionally conservative here for that exact reason.

As far as public health policy goes this is a distinction without a difference. Everything else is just pointless pedantry.
1 comments
bluGill 1862 days ago
I can read the data. However I also know it is messy (as all data is), and needs a lot of understanding. Give me the data and some time with a computer and I can make sense of it though - I have all the skills. However I also have a day job, and then a family to spend time with. There isn't enough time left to figure out the raw data. Thus I really need trustworthy people to figure it out for me and give me the summary that I can use. Such people should ideally have practice at the job and so can do it faster than me, while also looking for things that I would forget to account for.
link
Someone1234 1862 days ago
That's exactly what they did.

They said it is less than 10%, and now we have a bunch of people "correcting" them that it could be actually less than 1%. That correction is unhelpful/pointless/pedantic.

If the statement is still true, and the public health guidance is identical, then what is it we're even discussing? This discussion is pointless and the article itself is pointless.

The CDC cannot win no matter what they do. They say it is "less than 1%" then someone will find a study that shows that they're wrong, if they say "less than 10%" then people will say that isn't precise enough and that they're wrong.

link
Dylan16807 1862 days ago
> The CDC cannot win no matter what they do.

Their job is to pick the most accurate number they can.

And by accurate I don't mean "most mathematically correct", because that would be "less than 100%".

Making an accurate estimate isn't about winning or losing. It will never be perfect. Oh well, still have to try.

You see how "less than 100%" would be a horrible number to pick, right? Wanting more accuracy is not pedantry.

link