The virus mostly kills old people and people with comorbidities who would die anyway. Economic crisis come every ~10 years so it would come anyway. See what I did there?
Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
281–290 of 462 posts
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also possible that Italy is vastly unlucky for some generic reason, considering most of the deaths are in a particular region of the country and among an age bracket that is less cosmopolitan and more likely to reflect limited geographic genetic dispersion.
I suppose central China, northern Italy, Iran, Spain, the rest of Italy, and soon enough France, Germany, New York City, Israel, followed by plenty of other places just happen to be vastly unlucky for “some generic reason”.
It turns out the generic reason was being human
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…
The unanswered question of the GP is why you'd expect only 1% of the US population to be infect? I can't see the slightest basis for such an assumption. This an extremely infectious, quickly spreading disease. 30% of the US population seem like a more likely estimate. SK has a 1.3% fatality rate at the end but that was with a functioning health case system. If even 1% of the US population get infect, the health syste…
Infected != Ill != death
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um. He doesn't advocate do nothing. He specifically says the opposite. Read the paper. WTF?
Sure he recommends researching vaccines faster, giving people flu vaccines since the flu is more serious than Covid, admitting fewer Covid patients into hospital care, and doing more research so that we're better prepared next time when something actually serious happens. Or if this is serious, doing more research so that the data is the most accurate possible. I think calling that doing nothing is pretty generous. S…
He seems to recommend the protection of the high-risk slices of populations and campaigns to increase awareness regarding the importance of hygiene. Also figuring out the real incubation period since, he claims, the original patient that was found contagious was already symptomatic, but researchers did not ask.
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? because everyone on the diamond princess was tested. So we know for sure how many cases we are dealing within the sample. ~0.3 and ~0.9% are also not optimistic guesses but the current numbers for Germany and SK. Italy sits at 9%. So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Kore…
> So the situation is either that Italy is vastly underestimating cases, or Germany and South Korea have lost a magnitude of corpses somewhere. There is a third possibility. False positive tests: Germany and South Korea may have less cases than they think they do.
Prof. Drosten who developed the test says that cannot happen in practice. One would get a false positive result with SARS-1 (de facto extinct) and related coronavirus strains in Asian bats (that have not crossed into humans).
Source: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript132.pdf#3
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By John’s numbers (0.3% die and 1% of population) Italy should get a total of 1800 deaths. Yet Italy is at 6000 and rapidly rising - using real numbers his assumptions are already wrong for a first world country that is a few weeks ahead of the rest of the world. Just highlighting this bit of the parent’s post. If you want hard evidence that COVID-19 is quantitatively and qualitatively different from other coronavi…
It's also possible that Italy is vastly unlucky for some generic reason, considering most of the deaths are in a particular region of the country and among an age bracket that is less cosmopolitan and more likely to reflect limited geographic genetic dispersion.
Italian here. The most probable cause for that is that these areas started being affected earlier, so the virus had more time to spread before the lockdown.
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose central China, northern Italy, Iran, Spain, the rest of Italy, and soon enough France, Germany, New York City, Israel, followed by plenty of other places just happen to be vastly unlucky for “some generic reason”.
It turns out the generic reason was being human
No, the generic reason is age. This is presumably the oldest we've been on average as a species, let alone in certain countries.
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instead, the entire economy has been shut down, and the solution? The hospitals are being overrun. Your whole comments just reads like you're upset that you can't go out with your friends anymore. "Why should I have to stay at home, its the old people that are in danger, they should have to stay home." The hospitals are being overrun. That means that if left unchecked the virus overwhelms healthcare. Just yesterday…
They are being overrun with panic of the citizenry in the U.S. so far - not with people needing hospital care. At least so says my E.R. doctor sister.
At the moment, but the spread is exponential, and the U.S. in not an exception. It's just a matter of N days, where N is not a too big number. Everybody can do his own math, provided he understands the math enough.
But be aware of anybody who hasn't done the math. He simply doesn't know what he talks about.
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.” Why would we use the Diamond Princess CFR instead of China's, or Italy's, or South Korea's? Where does the idea of 1% come fro…
I heard that in US if somebody dies and had pre-existing conditions the pre-existing condition is usually the official cause of death. So the person is not count. This has to be even more true with flu. If somebody had lung problems and the flu season makes things worse and she ends up dying, the doctors are not normally going to test for flu. And the cause of death is not going to be "flu". What I am trying to conve…
> What I am trying to convey is that both numerator and denominator of the death ratio are very noisy since they depend on who and when is tested.
In this case now, you don't need that: the hospitals in Italy know for years how many new cases they get. Now it's like 50 times more cases that need hospital, and 50 times more dead.
It can't be anything but something completely new. If it's not a new virus X it must be a new virus Y as dangerous as X. But we know there is a new virus X. Old viruses simply had totally different need for hospitals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Is_COVID-19_like_a_flu%3F...
In Italy there were 55 times more deaths per week (two weeks already) than the peek during the flu season. The same with a need for the beds in the intensive care units.
Re: Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Diamond Princess is also likely not a random sample of the population - they are healthy enough to be fit for travel.
You don't need to be particularly fit or healthy to go on a cruise. Yes, sure, you can't be on life support, but generally 'healthy enough' to travel on a cruise is exactly what I'd expect from any random sample of the overall population.
You may not understand what "random sample of the overall population" means if you would expect every single person in the sample to be healthy enough to travel on a cruise. Almost 1% of the population in the US has Alzheimer disease or other dementias, for example.