Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

news.psu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#201

Post by lolc »

gizmo wrote: post #169
lolc wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for discussing how to best deal with the virus and which measures best contain the spread. Sweden is an interesting experiment. But your sources are lo-fi. I was unable to read the second picture. Check out https://euromomo.eu for a good source. > For instance we see that Sweden that didn't lock down has practically indistinguishable All Cause Deaths outcomes as the neighboring Nordics[1]. Sweden had very hig…

If you're just going to ignore the charts I posted what's the point? I already provided you with a chart that shows that, in fact, Sweden does not have exceptional all cause mortality. Not compared to its neighbors and not compared to previous years in Sweden. Yes, the chart is a month old, but if nothing exceptional is going on by May and covid deaths have steadily declined since[1] there really isn't a story here.…

Of course I'm ignoring your charts! After explaining that the first of your charts is too broad, and the other I can't read the labels of. I was giving you the benefit of doubt but after your answer I must presume you're picky with your sources to protect your story.

I'm not aware of a flaw in the Euromomo collection. Why discount it? I think they're more competent at collecting death-tolls than I am. What would be the benefit of me collecting the numbers myself?

Do you disagree with my estimate of 15% excess mortality in the 15-44 age-bracket? Or do you know of a Coronavirus epidemic in the past that had a comparable effect?

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#202

Post by anoncake »

Touche wrote: post #183
anoncake wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't deduce the gravity of a threat from the state's response to it. Just consider the ~0 killed by terrorism each year in western countries vs the security theater at airports.

Terrorism isn't an infectious disease.

Your point?

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#203

Post by grey-area »

arrrg wrote: post #152
grey-area wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But looking at NYC now, after peaking in April, infections and deaths are way down and stabilised, in spite of rising infections in surrounding areas and very few travel restrictions. So something is going on that we don't understand, and it could have a significant impact. If we have a higher immune population than we think, NYC might have passed the worst, if not millions will die in a second wave (though there are…

New York obviously “benefits” from an intensive first wave. Every additional infection makes spread harder for the virus. As many European countries show (including Germany, where the infected population is very low, much lower than the European average, much much lower than Italy or Spain) it’s very possible to keep the epidemic at a low, simmering level without extremely drastic lockdowns. Given a probably pretty l…

it’s very possible to keep the epidemic at a low, simmering level without extremely drastic lockdowns.

It's very hard to know the cause of the dramatic decline in nations that were hit hard, so I don't think we can attribute it as simply as that. It could be immunity we're unable to test (T-cell), weather meaning more are outdoors, awareness and measures like distancing and masks, or a mix of many things. We just don't know at this stage.

I'd note that Germany is still seeing outbreaks, and they were hit less hard in the initial wave in Europe. Italy in contrast, which has relaxed restrictions, is seeing very low levels of deaths and cases.

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#204

Post by SifJar »

addicted wrote: post #150
leereeves wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrariwise, people are avoiding treatment for other illnesses for fear of catching COVID in a hospital. Many people are depressed or even suicidal. And people are less active, which aggravates other health problems. All of these factors could increase the number of deaths.

3 months of lower activity is not killing people in those 3 months. Any effects will be felt on a much longer timeframe. Most office workers have very sedentary lives anyways, that didn’t become significantly more sedentary when they replaced their drive with a walk to another room and working in an office with working in that room. Throw in the fact that they are likely cooking more because restaurants and all were…

Plus no commute leaves more free time in the evenings for exercise etc. Obviously not everyone will be doing that, but anecdotally a few people I've talked to from work are going for more walks & cycles etc.

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#205

Post by anoncake »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #167
anoncake wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we could and should make policy under the best data available even if we'd prefer better ones.

I don't think that's true. It's very dangerous to make epidemic policy without accounting for model uncertainty, because by the time your model's clearly and unambiguously falsified it may be too late to deal with it.

No, not at all. Of course the model may underestimate the lethality, but it may also overestimate it so it evens out.

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#206

Post by Touche »

anoncake wrote: post #202
Touche wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism isn't an infectious disease.

Your point?

That your analogy doesn't hold. We do know that infectious diseases with a median R0 of 5.7 will spread exponentially, as was the case with covid-19 in the January-March timeframe.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#207

Post by gvjddbnvdrbv »

jmull wrote: post #120
jjjensen90 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's possible that there are many, many infected who don't seroconvert or ever manifest symptoms, and therefore would not have been tested with a PCR test, and would have a negative antibody test. We can see this in effect in studies of household attack rates and seroconversion. See this recent preprint and interesting thread (/r/covid19 is a strict science sub, not to be confused with /r/coronavirus) https:/…

Well, this study estimates covid 19 by looking at survey data on influenza-like-illnesses. That means they were counting people who had flu-like symptoms. Any potential people with covid19 but no symptoms would be above and beyond what’s being raised here.

Most of the people with flu like symtoms won't have had covid though.

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#208

Post by anoncake »

Touche wrote: post #206
anoncake wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point?

That your analogy doesn't hold. We do know that infectious diseases with a median R0 of 5.7 will spread exponentially, as was the case with covid-19 in the January-March timeframe. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

And that means that you can deduce something about the danger of something from the reaction to it because...?

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#209

Post by jakeogh »

pinkfoot wrote: post #174
jakeogh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the effect of fear? Cortisol spikes and avoiding going to the doctor for what would normally be a good reason need to be researched.

Its still caused by the virus. It counts.

Not completely. Fear is very profitable, it makes people more pliable, people that are afraid are less rational. There are strong incentives to make people irrationally afraid.

Re: Initial Covid-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

#210

Post by [deleted] »

gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #207
jmull wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this study estimates covid 19 by looking at survey data on influenza-like-illnesses. That means they were counting people who had flu-like symptoms. Any potential people with covid19 but no symptoms would be above and beyond what’s being raised here.

Most of the people with flu like symtoms won't have had covid though.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN