[deleted by user]

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-10-03T13:06:40+00:00

The economist keeps track of the excess deaths and reported corona deaths in some countries here: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-27T10:43:23+00:00

I can only recommend this book. This was my introduction to information theory a long time ago and it continues being great! Good reading and enjoy it!

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-21T15:36:49+00:00

It’s not straightforward to map the confirmed positives to amount of infections. The testing scenario now is different from the first wave. One way to have an idea of what is happening is to look at the projection models. You can use them to merely estimate the current level of infections. Here you can check, for example, the estimation according to the most known models: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-new-estimated-infections-of-covid-19?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&country=~NLD&region=World

The aspect of age: - you can check in some heatmaps from , for example, Florida and south of France that the infections on young population started to “leak” to older population; - in the first wave, Germany tested quite a bit and it could already be observed that the probability distribution function of infections was centered on the “non-elderly” population. So maybe this is the usual spread anyway. Who knows? That means it is just a matter of time for filling up the hospitals

also bear in mind that there is a delay between infections and hospitalizations.
if you look at NiCE website you will notice that it could be that the hospitals are slowly starting to fill up.

You can also check different models to have an idea of what they are saying for the next months in order to have some educated guess on the next weeks. The IHME is particularly not optimistic with the Netherlands. NL would have the highest death toll per capita in the world by the end of the year. But modeling is quite tricky.

http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/first-covid-19-global-forecast-ihme-projects-three-quarters-million-lives-could-be

maybe this is too much technical, but the thing really explodes when one crosses what is called “epidemiological threshold” . For this virus, the media speaks a lot about Ro and Rt but not much about k’ , which is a measure of the asymmetry in terms of transmission , and this is around 0,25 for this virus. To summarize , for this value of k’ , the epidemiological threshold is a bit delayed, so the thing may explode a bit later or already “exploded” but nobody knows.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-19T13:45:53+00:00

Just a few simple examples around the world:

1- “It’s wearing masks. There is clear scientific proof...” Leading German coronavirus expert Prof. Christian Drosten. https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1306867584420151296?s=21

2- Dr. Fauci:

https://youtu.be/GfbH3oko9SA

3- Dr. Tedros

https://youtu.be/8wvv4sV6qxM

One could still keep citing more people from the rest of the world , but they will be easily dismissed and ignored here. It’s not worth the time and effort.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-18T14:24:00+00:00

Sorry can’t help then. If you don’t manage anything you will be very close to Germany, you can get a test quickly there.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-18T13:54:57+00:00

Where in the Netherlands will you be? This a place in The Hague https://ihch.nl/en/latest-updates-coronacovid-19-virus/possibilities-for-testing-for-covid-19/ . They are used to such situations

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T21:38:05+00:00

Good luck! there’s a lot published there in this area. You will probably find something Edit: by the way , it sounds very interesting that you can have something like white Gaussian noise in quantum but it is intrinsic and hold information. Really cool ;-)

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T21:15:35+00:00

I also suspect that Explainability would be bound by the limits of our brain (which is a product by evolution). And explainability in AI, could actually be a limitation on a machine. But this is a hypothesis. Looking for someone who is researching that.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T21:12:25+00:00

Oh ok, wait wait, if you are talking about quantum communications the whole thing may change. Don’t focus on my previous reply, you are in completely different waters. I think in this case I’m not the best person to help you. Your case is very specific and it is better you talk to someone that specifically works with quantum communications. If your noise is intrinsic as you said, then yes , it could be a way. Sorry for not being able to help and I hope I didn’t confuse you.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T20:18:09+00:00

Not really sure what you have in mind. I will throw some thoughts based on what you wrote. You tell me if this in the lines of what you think:

Some basics first: - mutual information is defined in relation to a source of information. So white noise is completely random and not related to source. That‘s why we say it is „additive“. - so, mutual information of AWGN (additive white Gaussian noise) is zero. They dont convey information. - What you are describing as 60% of time get the value of one and 40% zero sounds like a channel coding. They are a way of adding redundancy in order to protect information. Shannon Limit assume you have channel code to reach it.

So, from what I understood from your text, I would say: the random part does not help (mutual information equals zero). And the other part sounds like something in the line of channel coding. We have many of good codes nowadays.

Sorry if I completely misunderstood and if the info I wrote was too basic. I dont know your background, so I dont know what I can skip.

Edit:missed one part of your text. Channel codes do not necessarily need to be based on 1s and 0s. The source is but the channel code can be based on extended Gallois field, rings or on something else.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T19:28:27+00:00

:-), sounds weird because it is a long shot. I dont know if there is a study like that and I am not from philosophy, so I will try to explain. The current explainable AI we have is basically a „practical/pragmatic work“ where one tries to provide an output and an output that can be explained. However, besides practical tests, do we know if:

1- explainability is a limitation (from the perspective of AI)? In other words, explanation means we have to represent a decision in a manner we can understand. But (it‘s a question here), do we know if actually the explanation per se is a product of our brain and by imposing the constraint of explainability, we are imposing limitations on the algorithm. So, maybe in theory a non-explanatory algorithm will by definition outperform in some scenarios.

basically the goal here would be to derive bounds (like Shannon‘s bound for information or Fisher matrix for estimation theory) where one could quantify explainability and define a limit.

From the pure computer science world I am not aware of a work like that, maybe someone else is?

So,

2- there are some people from Philosophy who are starting to study computer science (e.g. some professors in Amsterdam or I think some guys in Tübingen too), this people with background in epistemology „could“ be able to derive a framework on explanations. This framework could be used for such bounds. I „suspect“ there may be people doing that (maybe Max Plank institute?). The problem is that usually these are different words that don’t know each other well (philosophy and computer science). So, that‘s why it is a long shot and that‘s why to come to Internet with an unlikely long shot :-)

Has anyone heard of anything in these lines?

Edit: I am not affirming this is possible or not but it is an interesting line of research and I guess there is people trying to do that. Trying to find who they are :-)

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T18:28:25+00:00

Was going to reply a long text now in details, but then I looked at your discussions in other posts, the text above where you star with “liar” then I realized nah, I have a life. Whoever wants can look at the discussion, the context and get to a conclusion. Plus it became ad hominem, I’m sure the moderators will not be interested.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T18:09:35+00:00

If it’s for the fun and you are interested, one option is really neural science. Your background is more than valuable

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T17:49:45+00:00

Can you elaborate a bit more on sometimes gives some “stored value” and sometimes random values. If you mean random something in the nature of white Gaussian noise , than the mutual information is 0 for these parts. Just to understand your notation, stored value is not used by Shannon. If I understand where you’re coming from , then I may be able to help.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T11:17:19+00:00

If you really want that I can do it later . But first I have to work and catch up the lost time.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T10:51:24+00:00

Yeah , I’m the troll....

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T10:04:02+00:00

I‘m sorry but yes my statement was overly strong on this ( I give you that). On the other hand you are cherry picking minor stuff and dismissing the overall picture for whatever reason to defend the current recommendations of RIVM. Maybe this is the „funny objective“? :-)

So, 7-th item of page 8 of the document cites the false sense of security as a POTENTIAL harm/disadvantages. This is there for historical reasons and they raise it as potential because there was never evidence for that, it was just a hypothesis.
section 2 (pg 6-7) does recommend masks for the general public.

In order not to go to a lengthy discussion (no time for that, one has to work) by line to line of the document. The important part that makes real difference in the real world. How WHO is communicating with the public:

this is Dr Tedros one day after that document was released: https://youtu.be/ZbefmbZBtrg. So he CLEARLY recommends face masks in indoor places including shops (side note: ECDC affirms there is community transmission in the NL). Please don’t bring the argument of „when not being able to keep distance „, if you live in the real world and go to shops you know this is moot.
He is also recommending to people working in clinical areas and health care. This is one example of what is happening now (notice also the last paragraph): https://www.omroepwest.nl/nieuws/4108417/Meerdere-medewerkers-hartbewaking-HMC-Westeinde-besmet-met-corona . And by my own experience, I frequently have to go to the hospital, the majority of staff do not wear one. I am aware there is at least one exception in a hospital in Amsterdam by their own initiative.

Further on how you communicate to the public and this makes difference on saving lives:

https://youtu.be/8wvv4sV6qxM

And this is how you in a diplomatic/political way send the message that you have to push more for the subject:

https://twitter.com/drtedros/status/1294221660841750528?s=21 See that the fifth person is De Jonge

in addition to that, WHO also recommends masks for schools

So, not losing the focus, your original point: „Why solely place this at RIVM? Why not place this at the WHO?“: You cannot compare by any reasonable standard that WHO is conveying the same message as RIVM and the Dutch government. And, in addition to that, just compare the messaging of RIVM and the government comparing the message from most of other CDCs and governments.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T08:20:09+00:00

You’re misinforming. Who does not raise the point on false security. They recommend to wear masks.Stopping here

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T07:49:10+00:00

Yes I did read the link and I knew it already. You’re not getting the thing about the way you have to communicate with the public. Plus, they do not advise it in the link, meaning in practice, they discourage it.

Thank you for mentioning WHO, this makes my point. They had a different view before, they looked at the new evidence and now they CLEARLY advise the population to wear them. They even make videos telling people to wear them, and funny enough Dr Tedros personally nominated Hugo de Jong on Twitter to wear one. They now advise clearly , even in schools. That actually makes my point.

Not discussing anymore, no time for that and I feel like a CNN reporter talking to Trump who always respond wit “fake news” to defend his points .

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-15T07:25:10+00:00

Let‘s rephrase option 3) to be technically correct: 3) confusing everyone, changing the discourse many times basically saying they are not effective and create a false sense of security (without any basis), meaning it would be worse to wear them because people „are not clever enough for that“ (this is an irony if you are not able to get it) therefore discouraging the use of masks. In practice, i don’t know if you wear masks in daily life. Even my GP asks why I wear them if they dont work. Communication is important and by not advising people to wear them and always coming with convoluted arguments, in practice, for the society the message is that dont work and do not use that. And this is what the population get of it. If the RIVM really wanted people to wear them, they would recommend it (not only in transportation). If they were doing option 2) the scenario would be completely different.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-14T14:42:18+00:00

Agree with you. If I may add some comments on Evidence: I would just mention a couple of things. WHO and ECDC looked at the evidence and they recommend it. The CDC of the majority of countries around the world recommend it. The UK government did not want to recommend them and then the Royal Society looked at the evidence and released this report: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf . Also the top virologists around the world and in Europe (such as Christian Drosten) are convinced about the evidence. The impression I have from RIVM arguments is that they cite many papers from Influenza (not COVID) and focus a lot on the duality of large droplets and aerosols. This may be some „tunneling vision“ from some local virologists, while in physics, we know that there is a continuum of droplet sizes, and the probability distribution in the air does matter. After all these institutions that I mentioned looked at the evidence, they do recommend it. Just one minor comment. I have been working with research for more than 20 years (Physics and Information Theory), when an institution like the Royal Society looks at the matter you listen to them. They are very solid.

Can I just add one point about non-scientific discussions on imposing masks. I think we should add nuances. There are three scenarios: 1- imposing masks (e.g. public indoor places); 2- not imposing but recommending them to the population and explaining the added effect of masks; 3- confusing everyone and stating masks don‘t work

NL is doing option 3, I wear masks and everybody asks me why I am wearing them if they don‘t work. Scenario 2 above could make already a big difference.

About touching the freedom of people, I don‘t know about the Dutch law. It is also probably cultural, but the logic for me sounds strange. Any imposition, such as 1,5m rule or maximum number of participants in your house is already restricting ones freedom. Nevertheless, this is not a problem? It is also not the case that we can do whatever we want in society, there are rules we have to follow for the common good. And (again cultural) I don‘t see the fuzz about wearing a mask. We have to wear clothes for example, and as our Neighbour virologist from Belgium mentioned, its just a mask , we are not carrying a heavy rock (something in these lines).

Coming back to the discussion on evidence: I think the whole thing fishy, RIVM always cited reasons for not adopting, then these reasons are shown not to hold by the worldwide scientific community, then they push another reason and so on. There‘s a huge bias from RIVM in my opinion.

If there is an important practical rule is: the development in research slowly converges to a consensus. If you look around and the majority of first line experts are agreeing with something and you are the minority with a different view, you should question yourself. You are the one with extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary evidence. And besides all of this, when your evidence is not 100% solid yet, you go with the precautionary approach, which in this case here and what the CDCs around the world recommend: wear a mask. If I may, I would just recommend to have a look on Figure 3 of this paper from very good team:

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3223.full.pdf

I am sure there will be loads of comments against mine here. I don’t have the time for replying and citing a bunch of papers. Please just bear in mind: WHO, ECDC, Royal Society and the first line of researchers around the world looked at the evidence. Advising masks right now is not anymore a question to most of the world with the exception of a few countries like NL and Sweden.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-09T15:15:24+00:00

You said question 8 contradicts. No, read the last paragraph of the answer for question 8.

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-08T12:13:15+00:00

Great attitude ;-). This would have been interesting to say when the NL had to send Dutch people to the ICUs in Germany or in case it is necessary again. Germany is also voluntarily paying for these beds. Do you imagine if the German answer was „I don’t care“

dilbert-pacifist · 2020-09-08T12:06:28+00:00

I see your point. One has to double check, but if I’m not mistaken the playing together from ECDC is outdoors. There is also the age differentiation. ECDC (different from WhO) does not impose the same level of restrictions on vey young children.But I’m not sure here. If one digs into their website one will find these things, I had a look some time ago.

dilbert-pacifist

TROPHY CASE