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

Post by rich_sasha » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:23 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 rich_sasha » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

mrkurt wrote: post #38

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…

The sad reality is that broad, indiscriminate lockdowns are the only real tool available to some "world powers". We know we can manage the covid pandemic with ubiquitous testing and targeted temporary lockdowns. But there is no testing capacity. Which means ... it's not really possible to rethink the lockdown strategies. Given a choice between a thing that directly kills people, and something that more people die fro…

Post by tdfx » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:25 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 rich_sasha » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:27 PM UTC

claudeganon wrote: post #37

rich_sasha wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nowhere outside of places New Zealand and Taiwan has had long-term, unconditional lockdowns, and nowhere in the US has reached anywhere near this level of restrictions. I live in a state that ostensibly had “extreme” lockdowns and whole cities and communities decided themselves exempt from the orders with zero consequences. It’s also impossible to stratify people on the basis of health in the US because not everyone…

Post by rndgermandude » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #35

lima wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For example? I haven't seen a single paper showing such long-term consequences in healthy people are significantly more likely than from other viral infections. We'd especially expect to be seeing a large number of such cases in Sweden, should it be common, given they had no lockdown and a large number of infections.