Live data from Hacker News

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

who.int

211–220 of 400 posts

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

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I really worry about: that people are so risk averse and so invested in the COVID response that society is going to permanently become more cold, more closed off, and less human. 2020 life is no way to live long term, and I don’t even want to take a step in this direction. If I found out tomorrow that there would never be a cure or vaccine for COVID, I would just go back to living like I lived befor…

I sure hope that sick people continue to wear masks once this is all over. It's basic human decency to avoid spreading germs - even the flu - to others, especially elders. This is the norm in Asia. After COVID ends, I won't wear a mask if I'm healthy but I sure as hell will if I have a cough or fever.

Might be reasonable, but would you wear one all flu season just to make sure you don’t unwittingly infect someone while you’re asymptomatic? Might save a life.

If everybody comes out of this more careful about handwashing, I can’t argue that that’s bad. But I worry it’s going to go way past that.

I’m probably wrong though, judging by the number of people who already can’t be bothered with the one way aisles at the grocery store.

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

#212
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Buzzfeed is a solid journalism source. Yes, they also are famous for stupid clickbait articles, but if you read the article you will find it's quite solid. I already posted a second link for you, from the SJ Mercury News, which you chose to ignore. Perhaps you didn't see it. Here are some more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-... https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feud-over-stanford-co…

AFAIU Buzzfeed News is their serious branch. Think 90s Microsoft (Buzzfeed) and 90s Microsoft Research (Buzzfeed News).

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

#213

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.

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> COVID is the only remotely plausible explanation for those excess deaths. I personally know someone whose father likely died due to being unable to access health care in a timely fashion, as well as someone else who died of cancer after their chemotherapy was postponed. And I also know of two suicides in my extended social group in the past few months. It's tough to pin specific blame on lockdown for things like th…

I believe what you're talking about ("...likely died due to being unable to access health care in a timely fashion" etc). is is exactly what contributes to an excess death. That's why excess deaths are important, they take into account exactly those deaths caused indirectly. (a bit unclear, but you get me I hope).

But it's quite critical to know what % of excess deaths were caused by unreported COVID-19 infections, vs lockdown. The fact is, lockdown will kill people. It's really important to figure out how many it will kill, so we can balance that against lives saved, especially with COVID-19 proving to be much less deadly than originally feared.

As an extreme example, for some poorer countries without much healthcare infrastructure, you can definitely make the case that given the inevitability of the virus spreading, in some situations the right thing to do is give up early, accept that you'll have a wave of deaths, and move on. The alternative is a slow motion disaster with about as many direct COVID deaths, and additional deaths due to lockdown. If you don't have healthcare infrastructure to begin with, overloading it doesn't change much.

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

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buzzfeed is a solid journalism source. Yes, they also are famous for stupid clickbait articles, but if you read the article you will find it's quite solid. I already posted a second link for you, from the SJ Mercury News, which you chose to ignore. Perhaps you didn't see it. Here are some more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-... https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feud-over-stanford-co…

AFAIU Buzzfeed News is their serious branch. Think 90s Microsoft (Buzzfeed) and 90s Microsoft Research (Buzzfeed News).

That’s such a creative way to make journalism relatable to the nerds on hn lol XD XD

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

#216
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.

Thankfully the flu has an effective enough vaccine.

Effective enough for what? In some recent years seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness was as low as 19%. That's still much better than nothing and I encourage everyone to get vaccinated, but let's be realistic about the level of protection.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates...

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

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 deatht…

Why are you assuming that you would return to normality for the next year? If this becomes endemic, the mortality rate doubles forever, especially since there doesn't seem to be long-lasting immunity to this virus.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) is totally unproven speculation. We can’t even prove this happens for SARS-1 which per case is far more severe than SARS-2, its less deadly yet more infectious brother. (2) absolutely does happen in bad flu seasons, and by the way most of those images are misleading or taken from prior years. Seriously. Even in say, New York, you’d have hospital A overflowing yet hospital B 10 miles away was at 30% capacity remai…

> its less deadly yet more infectious brother. Nitpicking here, Sars-1 is, as I understand, more infectious but also more obvious. So you don't have asymptomatic spread and other things. This ultimately comes down to exactly what you mean by "infectious" though. > is totally unproven speculation. At this point we have more known Covid-19 long haulers in the US than there are Sars-1 infections globally. Comparisons to…

Thanks joshua.

By infectious I meant the basic reproduction number, but I believe SARS-2 is also more infectious (in the sense if likelihood of infection per exposure event) given its incredibly high binding affinities. It seems to be unusually good at infecting humans in a way SARS-1 wasn’t. Not sure if that’s due to furin cleavage or what. I’m a bit rusty on the mechanics there so open to dissenting opinions.

Also I don’t believe SARS-2 exhibits asymptomatic spread; that seems to be largely a myth. It does undeniably exhibit PRE-SYMPTOMATIC spread however. My hunch is that the early course interferon mediated immunosuppression explains that phenomenon.

IMO the true asymptomatics (never showing symptoms) are asymptomatic largely because of T-cell cross reactivity which theoretically will reduce or entirely prevent spread. Thus why we really don’t have good evidence of asymptomatic spread but we have a wealth of evidence on pre-symptomatic.

> Also worth remembering that NYC would have run out of hospital beds entirely if they didn't implement strict lockdown measures. The NYC (or really NY) stay at home order went into effect on March 20, and daily cases peaked plateaued 1.5 weeks later.

There is absolutely no way for you to prove this nor for me to disprove it, which tells you about its explanatory value. I personally find it much more likely that the dropoff in cases is purely explainable by timing; NY was already rounding the bend when it enforced its (IMO pseudoscientific and deleterious) measures.

Basically everywhere in the globe, including Sweden, showed a large uptick for some time followed by a peak and wind-down. That’s just the pattern infectious diseases show. To immediately attribute it to human intervention when SARS-2 landed on our shores months earlier than originally thought just seems like hubris to me. In any case the statement is not falsifiable so I won’t focus on it any further.

> There was a period of time when NYC was globally short on ventilators and ICU beds.

New York as a whole was a huge proponent of early invasive ventilation which probably ended up killing people unnecessarily. NY’s implied IFR was something like .7%, a number so bad it is unmatched by anywhere else in the US. My guess is not good pre-existing Vitamin D3 levels exacerbated by being directed to stay inside, combined with stress, fear, lack of exercise and lost sleep attributable to lockdown + general hysteria, and finally the aforementioned iatrogenic harm caused by excessive ventilation.

In retrospect it seemed the ventilator panic was only marginally more rational than the toilet paper panic.

I should note that, if we assume every use of a ventilator prevented a certain death, ventilators still had only a marginal effect since something like 90% of those ventilated died, and it’s only those with incredibly severe COVID-19 who end up ventilated (well, ironically except NY which seemed to ventilate “early and often”, so the cases were still severe but not incredibly severe)

> At this point we have more known Covid-19 long haulers in the US than there are Sars-1 infections globally. Comparisons to SARS-1 don't much matter.

I have a lot of trouble believing in a bunch of anecsotsl cases of people on Twittwr with very obvious political leanings, given that most long haulers I have seen are in popupations with next to no risk or SARS-2. It’s much more likely to be that the 20-something year olds are either inducing psychosomatic symptoms, or exaggerating their actual symptoms, or coincidentally got Epstein-Barr virus or similar at the same time.

I would expect bad COVID cases to have lingering effects for a few months, sure. But not “long-term” - although maybe we have different definitions there. Fatigue 1 month after successful resolution of infection doesn’t really say anything to me. But to give you something more tangible, I don’t believe anyone who’s in their 20s and otherwise healthy is really experiencing this mysterious syndrome, with a few very rare exceptions of course. You have to keep in mind the incredible psychoemotional environment we are living in currently.

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

#219
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How convenient.

The study linked in the OP estimates a median .27% IFR across all populations. The following numbers are from several month old seroprevalence studies so take them with a grain of salt but: https://www.ryankemper.io/post/2020-04-29-the_case_for_endin... Pegs the 50-59 age range around the median IFR. Whereas the >70 mortality is where things really start falling off of a cliff. BTW my point was never “your chance of…

> BTW my point was never “your chance of dying in a car crash is >= COVID”...although that statement would be very true for Which was based on your observation of driving VS Covid19 mortality, or at least it appeared to be from the comment.

People have a very natural risk aversion for a new disease that is extremely likely to kill their parents or grandparents, that has unknown long-term effects, that has no known treatment, and that risks becoming endemic if not contained soon (and that has already killed more people than malaria).

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

#220

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…

"discredited" means stripped of his credentials?
Post reply on HN