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

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

who.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 400 posts

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

#291

Post by dimitrios1 »

mrb wrote: post #280
dimitrios1 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suicides, hunger + starvation due, cancers and other diseases or illnesses not caught early, domestic abuse incidents, civil unrest (people get antsy when they have nothing to do). I'd say they are already pretty apparent, people are just fine to have their heads in the sand.

The only data I've seen (Peru) suggests that lockdowns significantly 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 homicides, suicides, traffic accidents, and other accidental deaths. I wonder if the same effect exists in other countries: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/131484402784650035...

I didn't mention homicides.

Traffic accidents being down makes complete sense -- nobody is going anywhere.

The CDC says there is an increase in suicide ideation https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm

The PAHO says the pandemic exacerbates suicide risk factors https://www.paho.org/en/news/10-9-2020-covid-19-pandemic-exa...

There are some other studies that I don't necessarily know what to make of that already say they are increasing.

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

#292

Post by SummerlyMars »

just-juan-post wrote: post #241
NelsonMinar wrote: post #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.co…

Let's take John out of the discussion. On Oct 05 the WHO officially announced there were 750m cases worldwide. On that day their official fatality count was ~1m. This comes out to an IFR of 0.13% Do you have an issues with this statistic as well?

Where are you getting 750m cases from? Their own dashboard only shows 35m.

https://covid19.who.int/

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

#293

Post by stefantalpalaru »

qwerty1234599 wrote: post #93
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.

Daily reminder: new respitory diseases come and go, nobody usually cares. What makes Covid different and what caused the shutdowns was when Lombardy alone had 450 deaths a day. No regular influenza could do that. It's not as if we decided out of thin air the virus was dangerous.

> Lombardy alone had 450 deaths a day

Keep in mind that we are almost ten million people in Lombardy - a sixth of Italy's population.

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

#294

Post by dimitrios1 »

chillwaves wrote: post #284
dimitrios1 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suicides, hunger + starvation due, cancers and other diseases or illnesses not caught early, domestic abuse incidents, civil unrest (people get antsy when they have nothing to do). I'd say they are already pretty apparent, people are just fine to have their heads in the sand.

Sounds like we need to restructure our social safety nets in America to prevent hunger + starvation and make sure people get the health care they need regardless of their ability to pay.

That's what you got from this? An opportunity to inject a political talking point?

People are afraid to go into a hospital. From March until September (for some states), people were being turned away because their routine screenings and exams were not seen as essential. Screenings and exams that can catch lumps, polyps, etc. Routine medical care is down across the board. Dental health is suffering.

For food, global supply chains have been interrupted and brought to a halt. These have months-long reverberations that have yet to be fully recovered. The people who suffer the most from supply chain interruptions are the most vulnerable, and those that live in food deserts. Again, money hasn't been mentioned yet.

But yes, you do have a mass loss of ability to provide, and businesses going under at record pace. There isn't a social safety net in the world you could construct to suddenly handle millions going out of work because of lockdowns.

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

#295

Post by [deleted] »

gridlockd wrote: post #244
bonzini wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excess death in places where hospitals were overwhelmed (Lombardy, NYC, Madrid) was so many standard deviations above normal values that I am not even sure how we can be having this discussion. Sweden could be a special case, but Brazil literally had 0.1% of its population wiped out. In Manaus there were five time as many excess deaths as confirmed COVID deaths. If that's not healthcare collapsing I don't know what i…

> Excess death in places where hospitals were overwhelmed (Lombardy, NYC, Madrid) was so many standard deviations above normal values that I am not even sure how we can be having this discussion. Sure, you may have very high excess death in a few areas, but unless you think people from New York are somehow more important than everyone else, all excess deaths must be weighted equally. Remember, we're trying to optimiz…

[deleted]

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

#296

Post by StavrosK »

ColanR wrote: post #162
NelsonMinar wrote: post #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.co…

I'm interested, but it seems like you'll need more than buzzfeed news as a source if you're claiming that Stanford scientists are unreliable.

For what it's worth, I saw him on a TV interview saying that COVID was less bad than the flu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF4lKVFpREU

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

#297

Post by onecommentman »

electrondood wrote: post #213
NelsonMinar wrote: post #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.co…

Media reaction was to an advance, not-yet-reviewed draft of that study. Your comments are a textbook ad hominem attack.

Please invite all your friends who are sophisticated enough to actually know the names for rhetorical strategies to post more on HN and Reddit.

If you can, post a definition of the terms you use to get more people familiar with the terms and concepts, even if it just boilerplate copypasta.

It warms the cockles of my heart to think we can actually tighten up discussions and get the heart of matters by avoiding rhetorical sillinesses that have been well-known in some circles for over 2000 years.

Maybe a good use for GPT-4+ will be a bot that will identify these rhetorical devices in forum threads.

And yes, it is an ad hominem attack. The basic point may or may not be correct, but the post immediately loses cred for using such a device. OK, now let’s try post hoc ergo propter hoc...

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

#298

Post by [deleted] »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #6
maxerickson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 deaths per 1000 infections is a pretty strong motivation to prevent infections, it doesn't need to be a contest between doing nothing and shutting down the world, strategies for reducing transmission can be independently evaluated. And when you add in fewer older people getting infected when there are fewer infections in general, well, there you go.

Extreme poverty is expected increased by 150 million people world wide bc of Covid. I'd wager there's a lot of people whose kids are running around a shantytown shoeless who would disagree with your levels of risk.

[deleted]

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

#299

Post by chillwaves »

ceejayoz wrote: post #271
latchkey wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Herd immunity has never happened without a vaccine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity > Herd immunity was first recognized as a naturally occurring phenomenon in the 1930s when A. W. Hedrich published research on the epidemiology of measles in Baltimore, and took notice that after many children had become immune to measles, the number of new infections temporarily decreased, including among susceptible children. (To be clear, though, I don't think the herd i…

The concept makes no sense. As soon as a carrier hits a group that does not have widespread immunities, you will get a disease cluster.

Not only do you have to have a huge portion of the population exposed to the disease, you need to maintain that proportion indefinitely AND will still deal with occasional flair ups among vulnerable communities.

That's not what most people think when they hear the word "immunity".

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

#300

Post by nwah1 »

cma wrote: post #283
nwah1 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is reporting an IFR you disagree with the same as denying germ theory?

He first reported an IFR estimate that was lower than New York's total state-wide fatality rate (amongst all population, not just infected), and did it with a pretty explicit agenda if you read his opinion piece from before the study. Several articles revealed conflicts of interest behind the study such as the CEO of Jet Blue promising lab funding for someone who didn't want their name on the study if they would sign…

I think, as mentioned here in the comments, his IFR estimate could be off by a factor of 2 or 3, but given that when he made his Santa Clara study, people were still worried about vastly higher fatality rates, he was still likely closer in absolute terms than many others. If he says the IFR is 0.27% and it is really 0.6% that is only off by 0.33. Anyone who thought it was 1.5% or 3% would've been off by a much higher amount.
Post reply on HN