Live data from Hacker News

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

who.int

151–160 of 400 posts

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

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally illegal, outside of narrow circumstances, to fire guns in populated areas largely because stray bullets will kill people. Stray respiratory droplets exhaled by people infected with SARS-CoV-2 will also kill people. Presumably you're OK with rules that prevent people from firing guns in public. Why are you not OK with rules that are intended to reduce the risk of people unnecessarily spreading fatal inf…

The idea of a "causal nexus" is not accepted in any law system (natural or positive). The fact something can happen due to your actions can't be used as an ethical argument to limit your freedom of action. From the perspective of individual freedoms the ban of guns is unacceptable under the pretense they might end up harming others by chance; if that's the case, the police and the military themselves shouldn't have g…

Bullshit, not only the bit about enforcement of restrictions to your freedom to prevent you from harming others (can't drive at 200kph, can't drive drunk, etc), but also the bit about gun controls is objectively wrong.

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

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about as valid an argument as appealing to the pictures of "overwhelmed hospitals". Yes, we've all seen those pictures. We've also seen pictures of empty emergency care units that were created in anticipation of a wave of illnesses that didn't materialize. In general, we can say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, hospitals did not get overwhelmed with COVID patients like some of the models predicted. Th…

Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that.

> Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue.

Of course, but you need a significant amount of hospitals to be overwhelmed to cause significant excess death. Remember, we're trying to minimize excess death of all causes, not just COVID-19.

> Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that.

Sure, but that insight doesn't really help. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. Given that neither Brazil nor Sweden had a lockdown and given that neither of their healthcare systems collapsed as some models predicted, my guess would be that a lockdown isn't necessary to prevent such a collapse.

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

#153
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, thanks. First study I've seen with more than a handful of participants, doing something other than self-reporting of symptoms. That said, it's notable that: * They don't have a control group (makes it impossible to know what the baseline rate of these symptoms is in the population). * They don't measure the various criteria for "organ impairment" before the participants caught covid (makes it impo…

There are beginning to be data on this available around well defined, young, and ultra healthy groups such as athletic leagues. Look within a given league at these long term effects / organ damage / health problems among those who recovered to rule out a lot of the self-selection or other variables. To some of your other points, the high end leagues are quite well medically documented, and the individuals are quite h…

"There are beginning to be data on this available around well defined, young, and ultra healthy groups such as athletic leagues. Look within a given league at these long term effects / organ damage / health problems among those who recovered to rule out a lot of the self-selection or other variables."

I'm aware of one publication, which showed 4 athletes with heart-inflammation markers in a sample of 26 athletes:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...

If there are others you're aware of, I'm interested in the links.

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

#154
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was always a risk even before COVID-19. Regular seasonal influenza can be deadly, especially to the elderly. Patients can transmit it to others when they are asymptomatic or presymptomatic. COVID-19 has a longer incubation period and a significantly higher fatality rate but the same fundamentals still apply. Any of us could have inadvertently killed someone by giving them the flu without even realizing it.

Flu is about 1/10 as deadly as coronavirus. And there’s a vaccine.

This is a debunked claim that arose from conflating IFR vs CFR. Please source your claim.

In terms of overall IFR Influenza and COVID-19 appear to be comparable. Influenza kills at least an order of magnitude more children, and for those in between roughly 35-55 they both kill about the same, and for the very elderly COVID-19 is multiple times more deadly.

The overall IFRs are very comprable except COVID-19 preferentially kills the very old. This also means when you calculate YLL (years of life lost) Influenza takes more life-years away.

I’d say at most if you take a .1% IFR of Influenza then COVID-19 is about 3x as deadly. Note however that we fundamentally classify Influenza deaths differently than with COVID-19. Almost any country considers any PCR-positive person who dies to be a COVID-19 death regardless of whether it’s a baby born with intestines outside of its body, or a young man in Orange County who died in a motorcycle accident, or George Floyd. All 3 of those examples I gave are real individuals who were PCR-positive at time of death. I know for a fact that the first two were initially labelled COVID-19 deaths, not sure about Floyd.

There’s a concept I call the pathological vs physiologixal distinction that is crucial to understand and has been totally violated with COVID—19. The short of it is that it is a mistake to confuse a virus with a disease. (This is also why the phrase “asymptomatic COVID-19” is an oxymoron; if you have no symptoms you have a virus but not a disease)

I have acne; if you culture my skin you will find the bacteria C. Acnes, which is naively believed to “cause” acne. Yet if you culture the skin of a healthy individual without acne, they also have C. Acnes. The question then is what combination of factors leads C Acnes to be pathogenic in one case (me) and not for another. The answer like most things is complicated, some combination of lipid peroxidation compromising the skin barrier, genetic skin turnover rates, etc, but most pop-sci articles will simplify it to “bacteria cause acne”.

Similarly, it is a mistake to assume that if someone dies and has a positive SARS-2 PCR test that they died of COVID. First of all due to egregiously absurd cycle thresholds, you stay PCR-positive months after infection (again, see George Floyd’s hennepin county autopsy, he “had COVID” despite having recovered from it over a month prior to his death). But more importantly even if you truly have active, replicating SARS-2 in you at time of death, you didn’t necessarily die from COVID.

I really got off on a tangent there but to wrap up, even if you take the official COVID-19 numbers - which I believe are grossly inflated - at most COVID-19 is 3x as lethal. To say it is an order of magnitude more deadly means you’re still stuck in April. It’s October now, please follow the new developments in the field. There was actually a paper released recently that traces the origins of the 10x deadly meme, debunked it and attributed its genesis to conflating CFR vs IFR. I’m on mobile travelling now without my laptop so I don’t have my megalist of research articles at my fingertips but if you search around maybe you can find it.

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

#155
The author, John Ioannidis, is a discredited researcher on Covid-19. He and his Stanford colleages are responsible for a terribly written antibody study done back in March on residents of Santa Clara County. The statistics in that paper were egregiously bad and seem cooked to meet foregone political conclusions. Some reporting:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis... https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/24/coronavirus-research-...

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

#156
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "some immunity" is clearly insufficient, because people who actually got infected with Covid itself and then again with Covid, in many if not most cases have more severe symptoms. In fact, the scarce evidence suggests Covid might be a subject to Antibody Enhancement; that would mean that every next infection will get worse and worse. In any case, Coronaviruses have long be known to cause very short term immunity…

That is unscientific fear mongering. As with any virus there will be some outliers. But in general there is no evidence of widespread antibody enhancement. Reinfections are rare, and most reinfected cases have minor symptoms. https://www.jimmunol.org/content/early/2020/09/03/jimmunol.2...

> That is unscientific fear mongering.

Please be careful with your words. What I said is clearly scientific, because it can be falsified.

> most reinfected cases have minor symptoms.

This is clearly not true. See https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

The article you linked is extremely old, July 17, when there was no reinfections known.

Besides, it is already known, that MERS and SARS both cause Antibody enhancement in animals, with paradoxical results - lower viral load, but severe damage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement...

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

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all true, but COVID hysteria has taken hold across the entire world, and HN is no exception unfortunately. You are being reflexively down voted because people view any comparison to Influenza as illegitimate, not realizing that you are making a broader point about risk management and attribution of blame for infection as opposed to saying that SARS-2 and Influenza are literally the same viruses. Personally I…

I don't see the point. There are rules now, so not following them would indeed make it your fault if someone gets sick because of your actions that were not in accordance with the rules.

Because if I go out into the world and get infected with a disease, that’s one of the risks of living life, and we have always understood that. That’s why if you catch the flu nobody blames the man next to you at the grocery store.

For COVID we throw this out the window.

When you take the approach to its logical conclusion you end up in a very scary place.

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

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to be cautious for any reason you want. But don't expect it of others if you can't provide evidence there is reason to be cautious.

We've got plenty of concrete evidence COVID infections can result in long-lasting chronic symptoms. That's sufficient reason to be cautious until we know the rate.

Considering that there has been tens of millions of people with a covid infection, where are these people with chronic symptoms?

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally illegal, outside of narrow circumstances, to fire guns in populated areas largely because stray bullets will kill people. Stray respiratory droplets exhaled by people infected with SARS-CoV-2 will also kill people. Presumably you're OK with rules that prevent people from firing guns in public. Why are you not OK with rules that are intended to reduce the risk of people unnecessarily spreading fatal inf…

The idea of a "causal nexus" is not accepted in any law system (natural or positive). The fact something can happen due to your actions can't be used as an ethical argument to limit your freedom of action. From the perspective of individual freedoms the ban of guns is unacceptable under the pretense they might end up harming others by chance; if that's the case, the police and the military themselves shouldn't have g…

To paraphrase Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an answer.

Might I suggest that you take advantage of open course syllabi from a major college/university and do some undergraduate readings on the history and moral foundations of law?

There is far more to philosophy and jurisprudence than Ayn Rand.

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

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > reaching 0.4% at age 55 > This isn't good news, really, not for middle-aged-adults anyway. Overall mortality at age 55 is about 0.5%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age... In general, COVID-19's IFR by age is pretty close to overall mortality. So even in unrestricted spread, limited by only herd immunity, at worst direct deaths from it would less than double your chances of dying in a ye…

> less than double your chances of dying in a year. The way this is phrased makes it sound like it's not a big deal. Doubling every individual's chance of dying within an entire generation is not something we should say lightly. Imagine if the base fatality rate was 50% rather than .5%.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I view doubling a chance of dying in a year, and then returning to normal mortality for the next year, as far preferable to mass business closures, suspension of civil liberties, pulling kids out of school without evidence, mandating everyone wear masks, etc.

I guess I never realized how risk averse people apparently are. I imagine these same people never drive a car since those things are deathtraps by comparisons.

Post reply on HN