“It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits [the virus] onward,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical lead for the COVID-19 response, said. Public health officials should concentrate on finding and isolating people who do have symptoms in order to stop the pandemic, she said.
Van Kerkhove walked back her comment in a news briefing the following day, saying that she had been referring to a small subset of studies that follow people who never show COVID-19 symptoms and their contacts. “We do know that some people who are asymptomatic can transmit the virus on,” she said in the June 9 briefing. “What we need to better understand is how many people in the population don’t have symptoms. And, separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit [the virus] to others.”
The WHO’s statement that asymptomatic transmission is rare “is not backed up by any data,” says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. “We know that there is asymptomatic transmission…. What we do not know is the extent to which that occurs. So when we hear statements that this is very rare, we do not know that as a fact.”
So in context, we had immediate, credible, clear pushback from multiple equally high-status figures in major media within 24 hours. That’s completely absent here as far as I can tell. And the Maria Van Kerkhove who made those statements at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic had a different level of experience with pandemic management from the Van Kerkhove who’s making those statements today.
Your historic interpretation appears to be that because she made a misleading, probably just plain mistaken statement 6 years ago at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was immediatelly called out, that she’s permanently untrustworthy and now we need to prioritize metaculus. That seems like a deeply foolish epistemic stance to me. An alternative way to interpret it is she screwed up, was called out, and has probably learned from that mistake, especially given that we’re dealing with a relatively known quantity in the Andes virus.
I 100% am sticking to my guns, metaculus is a wildly misleading source on this question and you all should be listening to the WHO.
I am confused why you are interpreting Jim to be making such a narrow claim? We have many confirmed instances of the WHO and the CDC and similar institutions acting extremely incompetently, and often deceptively during COVID.
Separately, sure, if you are happy to bet at 20:1 odds, my $1k against your $20k, same resolution criteria as the Polymarket. It seems like you think the probability is much lower.
I am confused why you are interpreting Jim to be making such a narrow claim?
I’m responding to the literal content of Jim’s comment, specifically and in detail. What more do you want from me? To read his mind? I supply multiple links with historic context deep diving into Jim’s casual one liner, and somehow I’m the problematic one in this conversation?
Separately, sure, if you are happy to bet at 20:1 odds, my $1k against your $20k, same resolution criteria as the Polymarket. It seems like you think the probability is much lower.
I do think the probability is much lower. But I frankly just do not want to bet with you or others here. It legitimizes more of what I find disturbing, which is the use of betting and prediction markets as a prime source of epistemic authority. It also signs me up for spending time negotiating bet logistics and resolution criteria, both now and in 7 months. That seems unappealing. What I find particularly irritating is the notion that that once a bet is proposed, it obviates a facts-and-logic based argument and undermines the credibility of the person turning down the bet. And that is what turns my “no” into a “HELL NO.”
What I would prefer is for you and others to consider the fact that a wide array of epidemiologists is currently in the news, saying, all with one voice, “this is not going to become a pandemic.” You can look into the personal history of the people making these claims. You can think about the difference between one expert making a claim that’s immediately contradicted by her peers vs. all the relevant experts in the media making the same statement, across a variety of institutions. You can read their scientific evidence and rationale. You can read what we know about Andes virus.
All those actions would teach you more about this virus and enable you to make a facts and logic based argument on the subject and derive your own number, if you need one in order to help make decisions.
If you feel like it, you can donate to a charity of your choice if it turns out that there’s no pandemic. If there’s a pandemic and I’m wrong, I’ll freely and openly confess to having been wildly overconfident.
Unfortunately the WHO’s top epidemiologist was also the WHO’s lead during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, where she proved untrustworthy.
And then you said:
The specific statement you’re referring to:
And I just don’t know why you think Jim is referring to this specific statement. Like, maybe it’s obvious from context, but it isn’t obvious to me.
I feel kind of confused on your other points. I agree that I could spend hours trying to weigh expert consensus and read about the details myself. I don’t want to. The prediction markets are telling me how likely it is. The prediction markets are generally well-calibrated. I don’t need to research more. Everything is good. You said that because the WHO top epidemiologist said it’s not going to be a pandemic I should stop worrying. That seems very dumb to me, and I don’t really think you believe it (clearly you yourself wouldn’t stop worrying based on it, you would at least check what other experts say and whether they disagree).
Here are links to ground this in historic context.
How often do asymptomatic people spread the coronavirus? It’s unclear
Are asymptomatic people spreading the coronavirus? A WHO official’s words spark confusion, debate
Claim that asymptomatic transmission ‘very rare’ was misunderstanding, says WHO official – as it happened
The specific statement you’re referring to:
So in context, we had immediate, credible, clear pushback from multiple equally high-status figures in major media within 24 hours. That’s completely absent here as far as I can tell. And the Maria Van Kerkhove who made those statements at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic had a different level of experience with pandemic management from the Van Kerkhove who’s making those statements today.
Your historic interpretation appears to be that because she made a misleading, probably just plain mistaken statement 6 years ago at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was immediatelly called out, that she’s permanently untrustworthy and now we need to prioritize metaculus. That seems like a deeply foolish epistemic stance to me. An alternative way to interpret it is she screwed up, was called out, and has probably learned from that mistake, especially given that we’re dealing with a relatively known quantity in the Andes virus.
I 100% am sticking to my guns, metaculus is a wildly misleading source on this question and you all should be listening to the WHO.
I am confused why you are interpreting Jim to be making such a narrow claim? We have many confirmed instances of the WHO and the CDC and similar institutions acting extremely incompetently, and often deceptively during COVID.
Separately, sure, if you are happy to bet at 20:1 odds, my $1k against your $20k, same resolution criteria as the Polymarket. It seems like you think the probability is much lower.
I’m responding to the literal content of Jim’s comment, specifically and in detail. What more do you want from me? To read his mind? I supply multiple links with historic context deep diving into Jim’s casual one liner, and somehow I’m the problematic one in this conversation?
I do think the probability is much lower. But I frankly just do not want to bet with you or others here. It legitimizes more of what I find disturbing, which is the use of betting and prediction markets as a prime source of epistemic authority. It also signs me up for spending time negotiating bet logistics and resolution criteria, both now and in 7 months. That seems unappealing. What I find particularly irritating is the notion that that once a bet is proposed, it obviates a facts-and-logic based argument and undermines the credibility of the person turning down the bet. And that is what turns my “no” into a “HELL NO.”
What I would prefer is for you and others to consider the fact that a wide array of epidemiologists is currently in the news, saying, all with one voice, “this is not going to become a pandemic.” You can look into the personal history of the people making these claims. You can think about the difference between one expert making a claim that’s immediately contradicted by her peers vs. all the relevant experts in the media making the same statement, across a variety of institutions. You can read their scientific evidence and rationale. You can read what we know about Andes virus.
All those actions would teach you more about this virus and enable you to make a facts and logic based argument on the subject and derive your own number, if you need one in order to help make decisions.
If you feel like it, you can donate to a charity of your choice if it turns out that there’s no pandemic. If there’s a pandemic and I’m wrong, I’ll freely and openly confess to having been wildly overconfident.
Maybe I am being dense here, but Jim said:
And then you said:
And I just don’t know why you think Jim is referring to this specific statement. Like, maybe it’s obvious from context, but it isn’t obvious to me.
I feel kind of confused on your other points. I agree that I could spend hours trying to weigh expert consensus and read about the details myself. I don’t want to. The prediction markets are telling me how likely it is. The prediction markets are generally well-calibrated. I don’t need to research more. Everything is good. You said that because the WHO top epidemiologist said it’s not going to be a pandemic I should stop worrying. That seems very dumb to me, and I don’t really think you believe it (clearly you yourself wouldn’t stop worrying based on it, you would at least check what other experts say and whether they disagree).