Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When is Data not Data?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When Orthomyxo says so of course. In a recent exchange I asserted that COVID-19 deaths may be overstated. Orthomyxo got red in the face, stamped his rhetorical feet, and petulantly insisted that no COVID-19 numbers are without the slightest doubt understated. There is strong evidence, however, that they are overstated, and when he asked me for data to support that claim, I gave him data in the form of this statement from the scientific advisor to the Italian Minister of Health: “On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.”

His response: “TO ME, that is not data.” Orthomyxo is so arrogant and consumed by confirmation bias, that he has arrogated unto himself the authority arbitrarily to expel from the category “data” anything that does not support his thesis.

His antics are not unique of course. For example, many times a materialist has come into these pages and announced there is no “evidence” for the existence of God. He is then shown multiple strands of evidence for the existence of God. I can’t tell you how many times the response has been: “That is not evidence.”

For Ortho, like the village atheist, evidence that does not persuade him is not “evidence that does not persuade me.” It is no evidence at all. It is really quite astonishing that a man who is by all appearances reasonably intelligent should have such a blinkered, almost adolescent, view of epistemology.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too hard on him. The best of us routinely succumb to confirmation bias. It’s just that he seems to have an especially nasty strain of that bug. Also, the problem is exacerbated by the arrogant certainty with which he asserts his views and dismisses any view to the contrary.

Comments
Complicating all of this is the radical age differences in COVID-19 deaths. Take a look at CDC's summary of deaths by age cohort here. (Accessed April 23; this chart is updated daily) I posted an article on this a few days ago, and so far the proportions I noted are holding. 6,426 of the 21,050 deaths that have been classified so far are in the 85+ cohort. 5,801 are in the 75-84 cohort; 4,574 in the 65-74 cohort. That's 30%, 27%, and 22% respectively (total 79%). We can be sure that most, perhaps the vast majority, of those deaths were accompanied by comorbidities. Yet they were all put down to COVID-19. KF is right. COVID-19 is an opportunistic killer of the elderly and infirm. Barry Arrington
April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
JVL & BO'H: first, the advisor was summarising results of an investigation by Italy's NIH. Deaths WITH CV19 are not being treated differently from deaths primarily due to CV19. An obvious case is, that cancers, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes etc are long-term, chronic complaints that are gradually undermining the health of the victim. CV19 is opportunistic, but its effects must partition between its own process, cases where it may tip the balance (as an opportunistic infection) and cases that were in terminal phase in effect already. I have seen that a dying person can hold on just out of hope and desire to see a relative, staving off the end until such a goal has been achieved. Doctors tell me that is fairly common. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: Prof Ricciardi’s comments suggest that if someone has a co-morbidity, they shouldn’t be counted as a COVID-19 death. But, as kf notes (as as is clear from the WHO guidelines), reality is more complex. I think of it like being in an automobile accident: If you're in an accident and you suffer major organ damage, let's say to your liver and you later die from liver failure than what should be the cause of death? Immediately it's the liver failure but you would not have had that problem if you hadn't been in the automobile accident. I realise that with pre-existing conditions the situation is muddier but the same general question arises: if someone dies from a new or pre-existing condition that was brought about by or intensified by a new factor then how do you list the cause of death? I think this confusion is why many analysts are now looking at 'excess' deaths over the same time period in previous years. If the number of expected deaths from all causes has been fairly steady over a certain period of time for the last decade or so then it seems reasonable to attribute the excess deaths as directly or indirectly 'caused' by the new factor. But, as was pointed out in a news story I heard on the BBC, there are different epidemiological reasons for looking at all the different ways of recording deaths. So, in the end, it's complicated.JVL
April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
kf @ 13 -
BA, I don’t doubt that some of them were deaths accelerated by the presence of an infection, but on dealing with a death by cancer in my family, I learned that many cancer deaths are not directly Cancer. In other cases I don’t doubt that the primary disease process was something else and this popped up as an opportunistic infection.
I think this is what is underlying orthomyxo's comments. I just found the WHO's guidelines for reporting COVID-19 deaths. They clearly allow for a more complicated chain of events (e.g. COVID-19 leading to Pneumonia, leading to Acute respiratory distress syndrome), and also for co-morbidities to be listed. Prof Ricciardi's comments suggest that if someone has a co-morbidity, they shouldn't be counted as a COVID-19 death. But, as kf notes (as as is clear from the WHO guidelines), reality is more complex. Unfortunately, Prof Ricciardi's comment doesn't give us enough detail to know exactly what their National Institute of Health did, so they might have used a much stricter definition of a COVID-19 death that the WHO is now suggesting.Bob O'H
April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom @ 17 -
Like when Bob O’H says: ‘We need more data on HCQ, but it (HCQ) is almost useless’.
When/where have I said/written that?Bob O'H
April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
Ortho, you are neglecting first principles of testimony. A reasonable source in a position to know the facts and record of same, coming from reasonable chain of custody and fair on the face [bearing no obvious signs of fraud] have a presumption of innocence. This means, the burden to show false devolves on the objector. Such comes from the right to innocent reputation and the impossibility of lying as the dominant mode of communication. A qualified witness is taken as truthful, absent good reason to hold otherwise. In this case, we have a senior scientific advisor to a Minister, reporting the findings of the National Institute of Health, on a matter within their competence. Specifically, that in Italy, deaths with Covid-19 are recorded as deaths from said disease, even though 88% of cases have co-morbidities. The obvious reason for so speaking, is that he is warning that the numbers are proxies, with noise [and especially an upward bias]. Good enough to guide strategic decisions but not a simple record of the actuality on the ground. Such is also in the context that we have reason to believe that there is a high proportion of mild cases that do not get naturally recorded while an epidemic is raging.That is, the identified case fatality rate diverges from the true fatality rate because fatalities are higher than they should and cases are lower than true incidence. So while deadly, it is not as killing as the CFR suggests. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
Barry, again, this seems to be a quite different approach than the one you take with Professors of biology and climate science. I'm not claiming Prof. Ricciardi doesn't know what he's taking about, just that his statement is a long way from showing the we can be "certain" the number of covid-19 deaths is overstated. Again, the best evidence shows deaths caused by the epidemic are probably under-estimated and sometimes by a considerable margin. It would be quite simply to say you misremembered the detail of this statement or admit that events have greatly over-run this now month-old comment. There is no shamein having got this wrong in the first place, I just wish you would focus on understanding what's actually going on, perhaps be a bit more skeptical and certainly spend less time picking fights.orthomyxo
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
JT, scientific, mathematical and philosophical[= epistemology + logic] investigations showed that in a given case [orbit of the sun] the observable relative motion of the sun was not the best explanation of all the material, credible observable information. It thus showed that our observations can be incomplete and misleading, so correctable. They did not show that such observations or indeed common sense are to be disregarded and dismissed across the board. Huge difference. KF PS: Note, Newton in Opticks, Query 31 as has been recently cited:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative, empirically ungrounded] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. [--> this for instance speaks to how Newtonian Dynamics works well for the large, slow moving bodies case, but is now limited by relativity and quantum findings] By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving [= testing, the older sense of "prove" . . . i.e. he anticipates Lakatos on progressive vs degenerative research programmes and the pivotal importance of predictive success of the dynamic models in our theories in establishing empirical reliability, thus trustworthiness and utility] the Explanations. [Newton in Opticks, 1704, Query 31, emphases and notes added]
kairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Orthomyxo@26, very interesting article. It clearly suggests that conditions occurred in March which significantly elevated the death rate far above that seen in previous years, and much higher than can be accounted for by the deaths officially attributed to COVID-19.Ed George
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific advisor to the Italian Minister of Health: "Italy’s death rate may also appear high because of how doctors record fatalities." Orthomyxo: This Ricciardi fellow doesn't know crap about Italy's death rate from COVID-19. Listen to me instead. I'll just let it rest there.Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
A new analysis of excess mortality: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html This will include people who died due to the pressure put on health systems by the epidemic, but, even so, suggests the deaths caused by the outbreaks in many countries are under reported at present.orthomyxo
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
I only say Barry's comment about the whether the middle of March was "early in the epidemic" now. Again, I don't especially want to focus on the semantics, but if you are going to call me liar then we should address this head on. About 1/4 of the deaths so far accrued in Italy had occurred by march 22nd, and any post hoc analysis of death certificates would have run some time behind the current date. I also not the state of the Italys' epidemic at the time hadn't dissuaded Barry from claiming it was "almost certain" tath fewer than 5,000 Americans would die from the virus: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/insane-scaremongering-on-a-colossal-scale/ The point about being early in the epidemic, which I admit I did not spell out, is that that the first to die are likely to be those with the least "reserves" , so we should expect the co-morbidity rate to be even higher among early deaths than the later ones who survive longer. Though, again, without knowing what the diseases included in that 88% are, it's hard to know what to make of it.orthomyxo
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
When Is Data Not Data?
When he's Lore?Seversky
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
This statement is a month old, there have been tonnes of cohort reports and mortality surveillance data since then. All the ones that I've seen report high rates of comorbidities, but they include common conditions like obesity, high blood pressure and asthma (like JT mentions) that people live happy and lives with. There mortality rate data makes it the scale of devestation caused by the epidemic clear: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries.orthomyxo
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
“JT, precisely because, relatively, the sun moves around the earth. It took a serious process of study and observation to revise that.“ In other words, science proved common sense was wrong. Thanks for making my point.Jim Thibodeau
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Ortho, actually when a senior health advisor to the relevant minister reports on the National Institute of Health investigation, that there is a caveat with the data, that is VERY important. Of course we would like to see details, but that is already a key heads up that we are dealing with a noisy proxy. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Nationally, 80% of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. I guess their deaths are acceptable, according to people of low character.Jim Thibodeau
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
JT, precisely because, relatively, the sun moves around the earth. It took a serious process of study and observation to revise that. IIRC, it was in the 1830's that we had direct measurement of stellar parallax. In short, your dismissal of common sense fails. Like any other empirically grounded inference, it is defeatable, but that does not lead to its dismissal. Again, a self referential fail. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
@Orthomyxo, I live in the Deep South. The majority of the population here has one of either asthma, hypertension, smoking, high cholesterol, diabetes, or is overweight. Seems like they’re saying it’s OK if most of the people here die, which is weird for people who claim to be Pro Life.Jim Thibodeau
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
@ Barry Arrington
So we now “know” that fact. How in the world can we know that fact if we have, as you say, no data?
I've always found these type of statements very strange. It is very very sad the lack of logic in today's society. Like when Bob O'H says: 'We need more data on HCQ, but it (HCQ) is almost useless'. Then why do we need more data? You already "know". Makes 0 sense. And no making sense is very sad.Truthfreedom
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
It’s common sense the Sun goes around the Earth. You think we’re moving tens of thousands of miles an hour? I guess you stupid scientists never heard of wind, we’d never be able to stand up if we were moving that fast! Ivory-tower morons. The so-called “experts” are wrong once again.Jim Thibodeau
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Just to reiterate, if you want to understand the causes of mortality in Italy the advisors statement alone is not useful. Actual data (in my original words, call this supporting or underlying data if you'd prefer) on those comorbidities is required. So I don't think your idea that we can be certain the death totals are overestimates hold up. As I've pointed out, the article in which the quote appeared also made this clear, but I presume you read it in a secondary source that tried to make more of the statement than it warrants. In terms of understanding the mortality rate that's really an there is to it. Given the posts above, you seem more interested in finding reasons to be angry on the internet than getting to the bottom of the death rates. I can't say that's something I'm very interested in helping you with.orthomyxo
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
KF, what you say is just common sense. Which means Ortho is trying to get us to jettison our common sense. And he wonders why I am so hard on him.Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
BA, I don't doubt that some of them were deaths accelerated by the presence of an infection, but on dealing with a death by cancer in my family, I learned that many cancer deaths are not directly Cancer. In other cases I don't doubt that the primary disease process was something else and this popped up as an opportunistic infection. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
I know I said "finally," but I can't let this inanity go:
So it seems likely that these people with comorbidities would not have died without the virus.
Really? 88% of the cases were accompanied by a comorbidity. Yet, Ortho insists that every single one of those deaths must be attributed to a single factor other than the comorbidities. You can't make this stuff up folks. There is no doubt that many of those 88%, perhaps even the vast majority of those 88%, would not have died without the virus. But it beggars belief to suggest that every single one of them would have lived.Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Finally, Orthomyxo wants us to focus on the overall context of the story (linked here). How's this for context:
But Prof Ricciardi added that Italy’s death rate may also appear high because of how doctors record fatalities.
We don't have to speculate about what this official from the Ministry of Health intended when he gave the summary data. He flat out stated that it indicated that the COVID-19 mortality rate was being overstated. It is simply gobsmacking that he keeps insisting that everyone accept his slanting of the official's comments instead of what the official plainly said. Ortho: "Believe me, not your own eyes."Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Orthomyxo, is a "summary statistic" data? Again, rhetorical.Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Orthomyxo
second approach requires us to know much more than the fact 88% of deaths have comorbidities
So we now "know" that fact. How in the world can we know that fact if we have, as you say, no data? If every single one of the deaths was attributed to COVID even though 88% of them were accompanied by comorbidities, is that not reason enough -- standing alone -- to infer that maybe, just maybe, some of those patients died of one of the other morbidities and therefore the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 was overstated? Don't bother answering these two questions. They were rhetorical.Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Orthomyxo
would you rather focus on insulting me
I am not insulting you. I am describing your behavior. It should give you pause if you perceive that as an insult. I will perhaps go easier on you when you stop lying. Take this whopper for example:
You produce the above statement [from the scientific advisor to the Minister of Health] from early in the epidemic . . .
We are talking about Italy here. Starting on 8 March, the region of Lombardy together with 14 additional northern and central provinces in Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, and Marche, were put under lockdown. Two days later, the government extended the lockdown measures to the whole country The whole country is on lockdown on March 10. Yet Orthomyxo wants us to believe that March 22 (when the statement was made) -- two weeks after the whole country went on lockdown -- was "early." Orthomyxo is clearly a shameless and incorrigible liar. I will leave it to the readers to determine how that colors everything he says.
when a scientist hears a summer stat like “88% of deaths have a comorbidity” we want to see some data to support that
Even if more granular data would be preferable, summary data is not "no data" as you keep insisting. You are not Humpty Dumpty. Words do not mean whatever you want them to mean. Arrogant people often have a hard time with that concept.Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Put it another way: would you rather focus on insulting me out understanding what the statement you quoted means for reported death rates. The second approach requires us to know much more than the fact 88% of deaths have comorbidities. We would need to know what this illnesses are, and how common they are in the general population. Without this data the summary statistic is not useful. But the excess mortality rates make it clear that deaths are far in excess of background rates, even with officially reported covid-19 deaths excluded. So it seems likely that these people with comorbidities would not have died without the virus.orthomyxo
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply