Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

It's very simple. More than .14% of the population of NYC is already dead. [eta: Now up to .145%] If you want to figure out the lower bound of the mortality rate there, and if you accept the sample that says that 21% of the population has been exposed, the mortality rate is at least .7. We know it's higher, but that's not the point. The guy who wrote that article has impressive credentials, but he is not thinking very hard about his numbers. The math is not hard.

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.

So we're doing that thing again where you explain that you're reacting to something stupid someone said somewhere else? You posted an article from the Hill, IIRC, and I responded to it. Yes, the risk will be lower than some unspecified hyperbolic prediction that someone else said somewhere else. So what?

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.

Obviously, we don't have enough testing to really know basic facts about the disease's spread, which ought to be cause for concern, not a lacuna to fill with reassuring speculation.

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%.

Dude, think about what you are saying for just a second. If people are dying in greater numbers because they don't want to go to the hospital to get sick, in a public health sense those people are dying because of the pandemic, whether or not they're infected. It's like arguing that the people who jumped from the WTC on 9/11 weren't victims of terrorism.

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.

Did you make that up yourself?

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.

False. You should seriously think about changing where you get your news.

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.

What is wrong with you?

If you disregard the people who get killed by the virus, the death rate is a lot lower. I will give you that.

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.

I can't believe it's late April and you are still suggesting this is like the flu.

It's funny, when you talk about the death toll from flu, do you disregard the people who were exposed multiple times in dense cities, and who had co-morbidities, and who were healthcare workers? No, of course you don't. Because you're not trying to minimize that number.

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.

The debate seems to be between people who think it makes sense only to re-open when the number of cases drops, we have better testing capabilities, and we can contact trace people who get sick, and the people like yourself who are too impatient to wait for those things and who are saying, fuck it, let's go.

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.

50,000 dead already and "this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us."

If there were a flood and it killed 40% of the population of Allentown, Pa., would you say, look at the bright side -- this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us?

Not sure why you try so hard to be contrarian.

We are all taking risks right now. There is no zero-risk strategy. If you want to try to persuade people that you are weighing the risks and benefits right, you need to start by not bullshitting about how low the death rate is.