Yes. The biggest issue is that we lack any idea regarding how infected the population currently is, or was. We don't know if 25% of all Americans have had a minor infection at this point and are less vulnerable. We don't know how it hung around Washington State undetected for six weeks. On the one hand, when dealing with the risks associated with a pandemic it is wise to error on the side of caution, but as we go thr…
You will likely regret saying this in about 5 days. It's already way too much. Call anyone in NYC if they know of a first hand case. NYC is tracking toward Italy more so than parts of China.
Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
41–50 of 141 posts
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm, no? According to the CDC, 83,500 people died of diabetes in 2017 [1], and that's not even remotely the top cause (heart disease at almost 650k). According to the last stats I saw, 8 people have died in the US of corona so far... [2] [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm [2]: https://liveupdate.world/coronavirus/m/en/ Edit: I'm not going to bother responding to all the edits, though at the moment they…
Odd how you switch from the reputable CDC to whatever "liveupdate.world" is. There have been 97[0] reported COVID-19 deaths in the US as of yesterday. That said, "all causes ever" is ridiculous. Even worst-cases scenarios[1] put COVID-19 as the potential third cause of death in the US. UPDATE: I think you weren't reading your own source well. There are +10 "new deaths" since an unspecified time, but that site is repo…
That said, comparing actual numbers against a "worst-case scenario" is also apples and oranges. 97 people in a country of somewhere between 325 and 330 million people... if my admittedly poor math skills are correct, that is about 0.00002%. Yes, that's in roughly a month, but even exponentially it _could_ be worse than cancer, but there is no evidence to suggest it _will_ be thus far.
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are so dumb that reading this hurts. Apparently you think this is a hoax. People like you that don't take this seriously right now will reel in the pure crisis and deaths that ensues. It's obviously worse than 1918 flu. The spread in the US is already very serious. Call anyone in NYC and ask. Please everyone don't listen to this utter fool. My jaw is on the floor because this guy's math is so basically flawed. Go…
Thanks. I respect your opinion, so very eloquently put, as well.
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#44"A new CDC analysis of more than 2,400 cases of COVID-19 that have occurred in the United States in the last month shows that between 1 in 7 and 1 in 5 people between the ages of 20 and 44 in the sample of those who are confirmed cases require hospitalization"
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/488325-cdc-data-show-c...
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#45In simple terms, here in the US, we only have a little data. E.g., apparently a big fraction of the data we have closely relevant to these questions is in a US CDC report
"Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020"
that is, to essentially the present and only 4 days more than a month.
Can see the report with a lot of words with actual numerical values at
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm
and, then, can see their graph of hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths by age in Figure 2 at
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm#F1_down
For how many people are infected, tough to know before we test a good simple random sample with a good test. From some of what Dr. Brix said recently, our test(s) "amplifies* the genetic code and sequences that.
If I understand correctly, the amplification is via the PCR where From Google,
"Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method widely used in molecular biology to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail. PCR was invented in 1983 by Kary Mullis."
So, the test is not trivial, is some microbiology that, say, before 1983 would have seems impossible.
Next Dr. Brix has indicated that the US is very careful about the rates of false positives and false negatives of the tests they use.
Still, for now, apparently we don't know how many people in the US are (or have been) infected.
But from the CDC data above, we have some okay data (numbers are still small for accurate statistical estimates) by age of the fraction of hospital admissions with the virus that got into an ICU and then the fraction that died.
Considering the US population over 65, how big is that?
Uh, from Google search
"US population over 65"
get
"49.2 million
In the United States, the population age 65 and over numbered 49.2 million in 2016 (the most recent year for which data are available). They represented 15.2% of the population, about one in every seven Americans."
So, the US has to try hard to stop the spread of the virus or, ballpark, the US is looking at about 50 million citizens (a) nearly all of whom would get the virus and (b) a significant fraction of whom would die if they are like the people in the data who got the virus and were admitted to a hospital.
Net, bottom line, if extrapolate from that CDC data, then the US has to be careful or a lot of people over 65 could die:
In more detail, from the reference with the words,
"This first preliminary description of outcomes among patients with COVID-19 in the United States indicates that fatality was highest in persons aged =85, ranging from 10% to 27%, followed by 3% to 11% among persons aged 65–84 years, 1% to 3% among persons aged 55-64 years, Or, it could be > 3% dead of people over 65.
So, 3% dead of 50 million would be 1.5 million. If want to use the 10% number in the CDC text, then that would be 5 million dead.
So, hurry up step #1 is to slow the spread of the virus by a lot of social distancing and hand washing.
Hurry up step #2 is look for cures by (a) trying old drugs to see if any are effective against the virus, (b) get some antibodies from some people already cured from the virus and see if those antibodies can be the basis of a cure, (c) starting with the microbiology, e.g., the molecular geometry, of part of the virus, try to construct an antibody.
Step #3 -- ASAP get a safe and effective vaccine and give nearly everyone a shot.
In case #1 to #3 happen too slowly, do #4, get hospitals ready for lots more patients.
Unlike some other diseases, some good news about this virus is that everyone who gets the virus can transmit it for only a few weeks.
So, in simple terms, if the world would be 100% effective at social distancing for a few weeks, then the world would be free of the virus! And if the world is close to 100% effective, then the world will still be free of the virus soon!
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> far, far more people die of very common things More people die of those things in a year than have died of COVID-19 so far but that's the wrong comparison. There's real science and math behind predictions of a much higher toll which would make the comparison look very different. There's also an aspect of who has control over outcomes. People can protect themselves from various ills by eating right, exercising, not…
I agree that we're not looking at a year's worth of data, but that was also kind of the point... we're not looking at a year's worth of data. If 97 people have died in the US so far... you've got a _long_ way to go, even looking at an exponential growth rate, to even approach the top 10 causes of death in the US. According to the CDC 47,000 people killed themselves in 2017 [1], and that's #10. Also 100% preventable.…
Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791...
Since we don't have anywhere near that many ICU beds, and there's an even more acute shortage of ventilators, a high percentage of those people wouldn't get the care they need and would therefore die - eclipsing even heart disease in the list you cite. So no, measures to reduce that exponent are not unreasonable. We need to reduce both the number of contacts people have per day and the likelihood that each contact will lead to infection. Please study some math beyond what you've only partially remembered from grade school.
> You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold
Those are far less likely to reach a level where they require hospitalization, let alone ICU-level care. Yes, they're preventable (not 100% BTW), but there's no danger of affecting others by increasing strain on scarce hospital resources, so it's not a very constructive comparison.
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#47In Japan influenza rates went way down because of the threat of coronavirus. [1] It might actually save lives assuming it's contained at some point.
[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/21/national/influe...
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#48Regarding your question about if we might accidentally test for flu or other, already existing corona virii: This was a topic of discussion in yesterday's talk [1] with Dr. Drosten, a virologist who played an important part in the development of the currently used PCR test. He said that there were extensive studies done with hundreds of samples from both flu patients and patients infected with other corona virii and…
So, we care about both false positives and false negatives. Dr. Brix said as much recently.
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#49Currently CFR for 20-44 year olds is less than 1%, but the troubling bit is up to 20% will need hospitalization, and what if the hospitals are full? "A new CDC analysis of more than 2,400 cases of COVID-19 that have occurred in the United States in the last month shows that between 1 in 7 and 1 in 5 people between the ages of 20 and 44 in the sample of those who are confirmed cases require hospitalization" https://th…
“The early estimates show that a fifth to a third of those between the ages of 45 and 65 who contract the disease are hospitalized.”
Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?
#50Says "Note that I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories so I will focus only on non-political information." Spreads youtube Video of a guy who didn't even realize that he made an impostor his second in command leading a public health office in Germany. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gert_Postel Article: Why Wolfgang Wodarg's Statements have little to do with science. By a well respected fact checking and inve…
Here's what I did before submitting this:
- Saw this video on youtube, found the non-political arguments to be convincing.
- Since I've never heard about Wolfgang Wodarg before, I googled and found his wikipedia page [1], which suggested he was an expert in the field. I also considered the possibility that he had very strong political views and it may influence his judgement. For example, I never considered (or mentioned here) the parts where he talks about Chinese government.
- Googled for more articles about this guy, most of the results were in German which I didn't try to translate. The only few english results were talking about this video.
- Also looked on reddit, found many people dismissing the video without presenting any counter-arguments (which I'm still looking for).
I'm currently locked in my home with my wife and two kids, respecting the consensus that staying at home is the best way to contribute positively to this pandemic.
When I saw this video, I can't deny that it brought a bit of hope. I know that we are biased and tend to believe in things we'd like very much to be true: Emotions can cloud our judgement (something you should consider in the future when calling someone you've never met a "conspiracy theorist") .
But I left my emotions aside when I stepped through the video making notes of the relevant points and creating a summary to for Ask HN. The only reason I brought this here was to find convincing counter-arguments. I didn't read through the whole thread, but still haven't found anything.