Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
economist.com
Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#2> "I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number — and this is just my hunch — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild, they'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people,..."
At the time, the person who said that was called an idiot.
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#3> "I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number — and this is just my hunch — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild, they'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people,..." At the time, the person who said that was called an idiot.
Even an idiot is right twice a day?
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#4> "I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number — and this is just my hunch — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild, they'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people,..." At the time, the person who said that was called an idiot.
Even an idiot is right twice a day?
30 days ago many HN posters were saying this. I guess they were all idiots too.
They don't say it much any more, though... why get downvoted? The fact that this has already spread through the US will become self-evident soon enough. ("The peak is coming in CA any day now! Just wait...")
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even an idiot is right twice a day?
30 days ago many HN posters were saying this. I guess they were all idiots too. They don't say it much any more, though... why get downvoted? The fact that this has already spread through the US will become self-evident soon enough. ("The peak is coming in CA any day now! Just wait...")
> 30 days ago many HN posters were saying this. I guess they were all idiots too.
Quite possibly. There are all kinds.
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
30 days ago many HN posters were saying this. I guess they were all idiots too. They don't say it much any more, though... why get downvoted? The fact that this has already spread through the US will become self-evident soon enough. ("The peak is coming in CA any day now! Just wait...")
> 30 days ago many HN posters were saying this. I guess they were all idiots too. Quite possibly. There are all kinds.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Study-investigates-if...
Idiots popping up everywhere, it seems...
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#7Here’s a preprint of the actual paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20050542v...
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#8> "I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number — and this is just my hunch — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild, they'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people,..." At the time, the person who said that was called an idiot.
Who do we believe a bullshit artist at the economist or Bob Wachter Chair, UCSF Dept of Medicine.
> @Bob_Wachter > 3/ Another interesting #: @ucsf, we only test pts w/ symptoms, who all think "I have Covid.” But only ~4% of our tests are +, meaning most folks who think they have it, don’t.
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#9> "I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number — and this is just my hunch — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild, they'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people,..." At the time, the person who said that was called an idiot.
Who do we believe a bullshit artist at the economist or Bob Wachter Chair, UCSF Dept of Medicine. > @Bob_Wachter > 3/ Another interesting #: @ucsf, we only test pts w/ symptoms, who all think "I have Covid.” But only ~4% of our tests are +, meaning most folks who think they have it, don’t. https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1247722427620012032
I don’t think it’s that simple about the tests. They’re less accurate than people think. Here’s one article about it (if you google you can find more): https://www.wsj.com/articles/questions-about-accuracy-of-cor...
Also, if you don’t trust the WSJ either (I wouldn’t blame you) here is an article from Nature Medicine that has a comparison of nasal vs stool tests for covid, and Figure 1b really drives home the high rate of false negatives for nasal swab tests compared to stool tests (and throat swabs are even worse than nasal swabs): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0817-4?fbclid=IwA...
Re: Covid may be far more widespread than we thought
#10% of visits to primary care provider is a _terrible_ metric. People have been actively advised to stay away from the Doctor’s office and hospitals for routine reasons (and reschedule for later). Obviously the % visiting because they think they have Covid is going up, even if they don’t have it!