Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data [pdf]

Post by xeromal » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

dirkt wrote: post #4

rossdavidh wrote: post #2

For comparison, from what I've read the typical annual influenza fatality rate is around 0.1% (don't know what the under-70 rate would be). So, this puts covid-19 solidly in the uncanny valley of viral mortality rates; not low enough to be "just like a flu", not high enough to justify shutting down the world. No wonder opinions on it are so divided.

(1) A COVID-19 infection can have long-term effects even in young people. (2) We all have seen the images of hospitals overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, not having enough breathers, etc. For some reason this doesn't happen with the typical annual influenza ... If you reduce everything to statistics about mortality rates, you are missing very important parts of the picture.

Post by lima » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #14

As others say, this is way too much to say "meh", but I do think it needs a rethink of the lockdown strategies. Lockdowns kill people; people with cancer, people who need surgeries, people who lose income to support themselves. Clearly, so does Covid, and we need to balance it. Can we do better, as societies, if we aggressively protecting old and vulnerable people, and let fitter people continue with their lives? Thi…

Post by logicchains » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

lima wrote: post #33

rich_sasha wrote: post #14

As others say, this is way too much to say "meh", but I do think it needs a rethink of the lockdown strategies. Lockdowns kill people; people with cancer, people who need surgeries, people who lose income to support themselves. Clearly, so does Covid, and we need to balance it. Can we do better, as societies, if we aggressively protecting old and vulnerable people, and let fitter people continue with their lives? Thi…

There's plenty of evidence of long-term damage even in young and barely symptomatic cases - it's not a binary "dead/not dead" outcome. What if the virus causes substantial disease burden years to decades down the road? We can't know, and should take every precaution to prevent its spread.

Post by claudeganon » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:20 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #28

claudeganon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lockdowns kill people Agreed. But what causes lockdowns? An uncontrolled pandemic. What does uncontrolled pandemic also cause? Collapse of healthcare infrastructure, which is a civil emergency that also results in countless deaths. Lockdowns, as implemented in places like the US, are a reactive measure because of a system-wide failure to adopt and maintain proactive measures needed to control things. You don’t arri…

I'm not demonizing lockdowns. They have a use, for sure, and they save lives. I just mean, they have their own downsides too, and we should use new data to evaluate how we implement them. It is now clear societies cannot really afford full, long-term, unconditional lockdowns. We have to pick and choose what we do, stratifying by age/health conditions seems a good way about it to me.

Post by rndgermandude » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

lima wrote: post #33

rich_sasha wrote: post #14

As others say, this is way too much to say "meh", but I do think it needs a rethink of the lockdown strategies. Lockdowns kill people; people with cancer, people who need surgeries, people who lose income to support themselves. Clearly, so does Covid, and we need to balance it. Can we do better, as societies, if we aggressively protecting old and vulnerable people, and let fitter people continue with their lives? Thi…

There's plenty of evidence of long-term damage even in young and barely symptomatic cases - it's not a binary "dead/not dead" outcome. What if the virus causes substantial disease burden years to decades down the road? We can't know, and should take every precaution to prevent its spread.