Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I don't understand what you mean or what you're asking. The virus has already killed .14% of the population of New York City, and the best evidence is that it has infected 21% of that population. That is pretty strong evidence that it kills at least .7% of the people who get it, far higher that the Santa Clara study suggests. And we also know that it is killing more people than that, because of this phenomena of additional deaths over the usual number, though that is hard to measure.

Okay. My bad. You're actually focused on counting the under-reported deaths but not the under-reported cases. You can't assume they run in parallel (for every 10 cases, 1 death). But nor can you focus on the numerator and ignore the denominator.

I've seen the critiques of the Standford study. There's a level of inaccuracy. But that doesn't mean the concept - the unassailable fact - that there are enormous numbers of uncounted people who've been exposed to this disease, is untrue.

The anecdata is not a study, but suggests that the official death rate is an undercount. The phenomena are pretty well established, if not the magnitude. Do you disagree with that?

No. But I think the under-reporting of cases has to be factored as well. When someone says, "Many more people are dying of it!" the necessary question raised is, "Okay, well how many unreported cases are there?" Focusing on the numerator or denominator alone is pointless.

Unless learning more means that a lot of people are dying, we don't have a cure or a good way to treat the symptoms, and we need to do what we're doing to avoid mass contagion that will kill a lot more people. Every indication is that a lot of places have avoided what has been happening in New York and Milan by enforcing social distancing. Stopping now is like saying, hey, it's raining, but I'm not getting wet, so I guess I can throw away this umbrella.

Who is suggesting we stop social distancing? Sane people are not suggesting that at all. The only people suggesting that are the loons who are protesting.

Reopening businesses while continuing social distancing is the middle path forward. Those who must be in close proximity to people will use PPE, those who aren't will use masks and distance themselves, as everyone has already been doing when they go to the store.

The only challenge I see is for sporting events, concerts, bars, and restaurants. That's going to be tricky.

I really don't want to go to the Covid ward in the Kaiser hospital in San Jose. If you want to take your chances, why would I try to talk you out of it. But when you call for lifting the social distancing, you are saying that everyone else should accept that risk too -- that because you are happy to be cavalier with your own life, everyone else should be too.

Except I'm not calling for lifting social distancing. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Wear a mask, distance, and if you work in health care, wear a face mask, N95, and a gown.

If there's anything we should have learned in the last two months, it's that the decisions people make on these issues have enormous costs to everyone else. When you are cavalier with your own life, it affects others around you.

Except again, I'm not. I'm wearing a mask when I go out, and I'm washing my hands aggressively, compulsively. I have older in-laws who visit and I'm not interested in killing them.

That's hard for a libertarian to accept, so it's better just to find people saying that the risks are really low, and pretend the problem away.

I'm saying the risk will be lower than the hyperbolic predictions of the media (WaPo seems to be singularly fixated on stories about young, healthy victims, who are extreme statistical outliers) because the emerging math suggests the ratio between unreported case increase # and unreported death increase # is going to drive down the percentage death rate.

eta: The death toll in NYC is up again today, above 11,800, so that .139% figure from yesterday is now .142%.

The study that came up with that 21% was done at grocery stores. Adjust it to account for those who were staying at home with the disease because they are too sick to leave the home or self-quarantining based on symptoms.

What you have in that study is useful, but incomplete - a percentage based on those healthy enough to be out and about.

We don't know what the adjustment would be, but we know it would cause the unreported # to increase. The question is whether a corresponding unreported covid death # increases at a similar rate.

Also, regarding the increased overall death #, how can you assume a significant number of them are covid related? We know a significant number of them are people who died of other causes because they could not get care from an overburdened ER, or chose to forego care out of fear of acquiring covid at the hospital. Net those against the gross death increase and I suspect you'll see the spread between the unreported cases and unreported deaths drive the death rate down to a fraction of that .142%.

And then on top of that, adjust for viral load unique to NYC. In dense areas, one can be hit with this virus over and over before he knows he has it. In a locale like FL, OTOH, where the predicted explosion of cases has not materialized, people acquiring Covid are not likely to endure repeated exposures. That renders NYC's death rate a poor analogue for the rest of the country.

Additionally, adjust for NYC's unique exposure to the European mutation of Covid that ripped through Italy. It appears the Chinese variant that stalked the west coast (and much of the rest of the country if the stories about it being here since December prove true) is not as deadly.

One final adjustment - pull out the health care workers in NYC who have been infected. They're not representative of the population at large as they're being daily submersed in a uniquely virus rich environment.

The emerging math draws a picture of a cruel and capricious disease with an elevated kill rate in densely populated areas and much lower kill rate in less densely populated areas. Genetics and co-morbidities also play a part. But in aggregate, it appears a lot closer to the regular flu than the Spanish Flu.

This suggests novelty and fear of being the outlier are driving a lot of our reactions, which is understandable. As we acquire solid information, however, we must be willing to let those initial fearful reactions fade a bit in favor of a more circumspect approach. That would be the "middle path" which involves reopening incrementally with precautions, including social distancing, in place. It also involves putting aside this crazy tribalism that has people pitting health vs. economics. These things are inextricably intertwined and not in competition.

I say this as someone who has 0.000% chance of not acquiring this at some point, given what my spouse and I are doing to make money we need to survive (and to keep employees at work). But I'd also say this to anyone who thinks he isn't going to get this. Chances are much, much greater that you will in fact get it. Your chances of avoiding it long enough for a vaccine to emerge are low, even with social distancing. Your best hope is that you can hold out long enough for a therapy that stops the virus from putting you in the hospital.

I think most people understand they're going to be forced to take risks and will sooner or later dance with this virus. But they're moving thru a mix of the anger, bargaining, and depression phases of the five stages of grief, and having a tough time coming to acceptance, lashing out at the notion of doing so. Right, well, we all wish we had a better hand. But these are the cards dealt.

I think looking at the bright side, that this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us, is helpful. YMMV.