6 ms·

Voluntary isolation and support system for at-risk people (and possibly denial of care to those who choose not to isolate). Something along the lines of what th

Voluntary isolation and support system for at-risk people (and possibly denial of care to those who choose not to isolate). Something along the lines of what the UK had been planning to do.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
Given that assumption I mentioned above about the epidemiological model (this would be the Imperial College London study that resulted in the UK changing its mind about going for herd immunity), how do you feel about your policy proposal resulting in 510k deaths in the UK and 2.2m deaths in the US? Just curious to know your thought process for the ethical issues in a policy decision like that.
- mathdev 6y ago
  The 510k deaths figure assumes 80% get infected (upper bound given by models and no mitigation whatsoever) and 1% mortality. The actual mortality is almost certainly significantly lower - the Oxford's CBM estimates 0.2% [1], so twice as bad as flu. Let's even assume incorrectly that all COVID deaths are on top of the 600k normal deaths. So in 2020 85% more people die of natural causes than normally. Almost exclusively very old and already ill people. It's just not a big deal and it's crazy that people think it is. Now let's say that the death rate is 0.2% as the Oxford institute estimates, 20% of COVID casualties would have died anyway, and that isolating the at-risk people further reduces the casualties by half. We end up with 40,000 extra deaths, 7% more deaths than normally. A non-event. If you think that the death toll of the lockdowns will be lower than that, then I hope you are right. I expect not. [1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-...
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    >The actual mortality is almost certainly significantly lower - the Oxford's CBM estimates 0.2% [1], so twice as bad as flu. The Oxford CEBM estimate is an extreme outlier, and I have not seen a pre-print of any rigorous work that was used to produce those estimates. That, for lack of a better word, blog post you linked to is full of spurious analyses like the following: >Therefore, to estimate the IFR, we used the estimate from Germany’s current data 22nd March (93 deaths 23129) cases); CFR 0.51% So they essentially just took the current cases and produced a naive case fatality rate, despite the fact that many cases are still ongoing? By the way the number of deaths is 281 now and Germany's nCFR is climbing quickly, yet they have not revised their estimate higher. Why is that? I'll also note that they conveniently exclude South Korea from their analysis. Why are they only choosing countries that favorably support their "low IFR" hypothesis? >The results of screenings have suggested 0.5% are infected; the true figure is likely higher due to asymptomatic and as a result of many not seeking testing: estimates suggest the real number infected is 1%. Iceland is currently reporting two deaths in 737 patients, CFR. 0.27%; if 1% of the population (364,000) is infected then the corresponding IFR would be 0.05%. They neglect to include in their analysis that the 1% infected ratio for Iceland came from a voluntary screening study, meaning that it was not a random population sample but most likely enriched for infected cases. They then naively back this out to a ridiculous IFR of 0.05%. Honestly, are these people even actual researchers? >Let's even assume incorrectly that all COVID deaths are on top of the 600k normal deaths. So in 2020 85% more people die of natural causes than normally. Almost exclusively very old and already ill people. It's just not a big deal and it's crazy that people think it is. This ghoulish statement is all that I really need to know about you.
    - mathdev 6y ago
      Right, we should listen to specialists, unless they contradict the mass panic.. It really is hopeless.
      - cycrutchfield 6y ago
        Pointing out flaws in research is good science. That Oxford CEBM page is frankly amateurish work. The same question could go for you, why do you only listen to specialists that are contrarian outliers?
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Oxford's number isn't peer reviewed and it makes assumptions that don't match what we see in other countries (or even on Diamond Princess).
    - mathdev 6y ago
      No country does enough testing to make empirical death rates informative.
paulie_a 6y ago
What support system do you suggest, I was supposed to have surgery yesterday. Today I will receive news that my larger surgery will be indefinitely delayed. Where and who should I seek out for a "support system" People are whining about volunteer isolation after a couple days. I've been living it for roughly 6 months. And my self quarantine reduces my individual risk while a disease spreads fast. This is just the beginning for normally healthy people.

Voluntary isolation and support system for at-risk people (and possibly denial of care to those who choose not to isolate). Something along the lines of what the UK had been planning to do.

cycrutchfield 6y ago

Given that assumption I mentioned above about the epidemiological model (this would be the Imperial College London study that resulted in the UK changing its mind about going for herd immunity), how do you feel about your policy proposal resulting in 510k deaths in the UK and 2.2m deaths in the US? Just curious to know your thought process for the ethical issues in a policy decision like that.

mathdev 6y ago
The 510k deaths figure assumes 80% get infected (upper bound given by models and no mitigation whatsoever) and 1% mortality. The actual mortality is almost certainly significantly lower - the Oxford's CBM estimates 0.2% [1], so twice as bad as flu. Let's even assume incorrectly that all COVID deaths are on top of the 600k normal deaths. So in 2020 85% more people die of natural causes than normally. Almost exclusively very old and already ill people. It's just not a big deal and it's crazy that people think it is. Now let's say that the death rate is 0.2% as the Oxford institute estimates, 20% of COVID casualties would have died anyway, and that isolating the at-risk people further reduces the casualties by half. We end up with 40,000 extra deaths, 7% more deaths than normally. A non-event. If you think that the death toll of the lockdowns will be lower than that, then I hope you are right. I expect not. [1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-...
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  >The actual mortality is almost certainly significantly lower - the Oxford's CBM estimates 0.2% [1], so twice as bad as flu. The Oxford CEBM estimate is an extreme outlier, and I have not seen a pre-print of any rigorous work that was used to produce those estimates. That, for lack of a better word, blog post you linked to is full of spurious analyses like the following: >Therefore, to estimate the IFR, we used the estimate from Germany’s current data 22nd March (93 deaths 23129) cases); CFR 0.51% So they essentially just took the current cases and produced a naive case fatality rate, despite the fact that many cases are still ongoing? By the way the number of deaths is 281 now and Germany's nCFR is climbing quickly, yet they have not revised their estimate higher. Why is that? I'll also note that they conveniently exclude South Korea from their analysis. Why are they only choosing countries that favorably support their "low IFR" hypothesis? >The results of screenings have suggested 0.5% are infected; the true figure is likely higher due to asymptomatic and as a result of many not seeking testing: estimates suggest the real number infected is 1%. Iceland is currently reporting two deaths in 737 patients, CFR. 0.27%; if 1% of the population (364,000) is infected then the corresponding IFR would be 0.05%. They neglect to include in their analysis that the 1% infected ratio for Iceland came from a voluntary screening study, meaning that it was not a random population sample but most likely enriched for infected cases. They then naively back this out to a ridiculous IFR of 0.05%. Honestly, are these people even actual researchers? >Let's even assume incorrectly that all COVID deaths are on top of the 600k normal deaths. So in 2020 85% more people die of natural causes than normally. Almost exclusively very old and already ill people. It's just not a big deal and it's crazy that people think it is. This ghoulish statement is all that I really need to know about you.
  - mathdev 6y ago
    Right, we should listen to specialists, unless they contradict the mass panic.. It really is hopeless.
    - cycrutchfield 6y ago
      Pointing out flaws in research is good science. That Oxford CEBM page is frankly amateurish work. The same question could go for you, why do you only listen to specialists that are contrarian outliers?
- DanBC 6y ago
  Oxford's number isn't peer reviewed and it makes assumptions that don't match what we see in other countries (or even on Diamond Princess).
  - mathdev 6y ago
    No country does enough testing to make empirical death rates informative.

paulie_a 6y ago

What support system do you suggest, I was supposed to have surgery yesterday. Today I will receive news that my larger surgery will be indefinitely delayed. Where and who should I seek out for a "support system" People are whining about volunteer isolation after a couple days. I've been living it for roughly 6 months. And my self quarantine reduces my individual risk while a disease spreads fast. This is just the beginning for normally healthy people.