7 ms·

1. It's old people AND people with comorbidities, which is a ton of people. 2. Lots of old people, which for Covid is about 65, still work full time jobs. Some

1. It's old people AND people with comorbidities, which is a ton of people. 2. Lots of old people, which for Covid is about 65, still work full time jobs. Some of them fly every week. These aren't 95+ year olds. 3. I'm sure people of all ages think their life is very valuable, and very few people consider themselves candidates for sacrifice. Certainly not for privacy concerns. 4. 10x deadlier than the flu.

antpls 6y ago
It could only work if everyone wear a phone. And then what's next? Forcing everyone by law to always wear a phone at all time? I would rather see new phone sensors that scan the air, the breath and the body for diseases than a new tracking technology. We could also develop new medicines, etc. Not tracking. Edit : we also don't have much knowledge about why the virus is more lethal for some people than others. We should focus effort at predicting who will be asymptomatic and who will develop complications, rather than trying to stop the virus from spreading by isolating people
arcticbull 6y ago
1. It's old people AND people with comorbidities, which is a ton of people. Yep, and they should shelter in place. Nobody else should. 2. Lots of old people, which for Covid is about 65, still work full time jobs. Some of them fly every week. These aren't 95+ year olds. Yep, and they should shelter in place, because they're in a risk category. 3. I'm sure people of all ages think their life is very valuable, and very few people consider themselves candidates for sacrifice. Certainly not for privacy concerns. That's an unfortunate way of looking at this. The reality is everything we do in life involves risk. There's risk of harm in shutting down the economy, and there's risk of harm in opening the doors. The lifetime risk of death being involved in a car accident is 1%. The lifetime risk of dying of an opioid overdose is 2%. COVID is much lower than both. Locked inside domestic violence is up, alcoholism is up -- liquor stores are considered essential so alcoholics won't come in to hospital due to withdrawal. What we do know is if we lock things down, then one person flies in from a foreign country with the disease the whole thing starts over. Hiding inside is not a sustainable strategy. Which is why Sweden remains open for business. And you know what? They're doing just fine [1]. 4. 10x deadlier than the flu. It is not. We do not know how deadly it is, all we know is that of people who go to the hospital (implying that they're showing serious symptoms) between 0% and 9% of people, depending on their age and comorbidities, die. That's adverse selection sampling bias. Studies show there's huge, huge quantities of people who either show no symptoms at all (which is the thing that makes this disease a challenge) or exhibit mild flu-like symptoms. The numbers we're seeing are an upper-bound, by an order of magnitude. It's likely in line with the flu, although we should consider in line with the flu is bad -- it kills 650,000 people each and every year we've been alive. It's also much harder to immunize against the flu (19-60% effective) due to its propensity to mutate and the huge number of strains that show up each season, with different ones being dominant each year. On the other hand, COVID does not mutate -- or has not yet. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasquith/2020/04/04/no-lockdowns-in-sweden-as-stockholm-remains-open-parks-and-open-air-museums-operating/#77737bef707a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasquith/2020/04/04/no-lock...
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  The ratio of asymptomatic to symptomatic people has been measured, and it's not nearly as high as you're saying. China has been quarantining and testing every single person entering the country, and they find that 2/3rds of cases are asymptomatic. Moreover, Germany has conducted a randomized serological survey of the population of one town where there was a large outbreak, and determined that the true mortality rate was about 0.4%, which is an order of magnitude higher than mortality due to the flu. That's the mortality if there's excellent healthcare and the system isn't overwhelmed. Mortality will also depend on the age structure of the population, rates of obesity and smoking, etc. Because a large fraction of the population is immune to the seasonal flu (both through vaccination and previous infection), far fewer people contract it than would contract CoVID-19 in an uncontrolled epidemic. The combination of a much larger rate of infection than the flu and far higher mortality means that CoVID-19 would kill orders of magnitude more people in one year.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > Moreover, Germany has conducted a randomized serological survey of the population of one town where there was a large outbreak... 1. Results showed 0.37% mortality rate, which is an order of magnitude lower than the fatality rates being published, which is what I claimed -- so I re-iterate: "The numbers we're seeing are an upper-bound, by an order of magnitude." [1] 2. 14% of their town has had it already. [1] 3. That 0.37% rate includes all the old and at-risk folks which I was already suggesting we isolate. Since we know the fatality rate for them is 9% in hospital vs 0.1%, I'd suggest that the actual mortality rate of my plan would be incredibly low. [1] We don't know the demographic distribution of the town, and we do know that the disease is incredibly age-dependent so it's hard to project that onto the population. Either way the flu is 0.1% so this isn't 10X worse, it's 3.7X worse. At most. 4. The study shows 15% of them are already immune to COVID. [edit] I found the data [2]. Out of a population of 12,000, 6500 of them are in a risk group (over 45). So 55% of town. This needs to be projected onto the world population factoring into account non-linear risk response. > Because a large fraction of the population is immune to the seasonal flu (both through vaccination and previous infection), far fewer people contract it than would contract CoVID-19 in an uncontrolled epidemic. I don't think they are. The flu mutates regularly, and there's a ton of strains. Vaccinations are only 19-60% effective depending on the year. This is evidenced by the 650,000 worldwide deaths (60,000 US) and the 45,000,000 US cases of the flu each year. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people-are-now-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tes... [2] https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/nordrheinwestfalen/heinsberg/05370008__gangelt/ https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/nordrheinwestfalen/...
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
4. And there's no preexisting immunity, unlike with the seasonal flu. Left unchecked, CoVID-19 will infect a much larger share of the population than flu.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  That's not actually true. The seasonal flu affects 45,000,000 americans every year, and in part because it (a) mutates and (b) there's a huge number of strains, and different ones are dominant in different years. The flu shot is not particularly effective for those reasons (19-60% depending on the year). COVID however, does not mutate, or has not yet. This means herd immunity is on the table, and so is a ~100% reliable vaccine -- like MMR, not like flu shot.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    It is true. A substantial fraction of the population is immune to the circulating seasonal flu, both through vaccination and previous infection with closely related strains. Only 5-20% of the population gets the flu each year. 60-70% of the population would have to get CoVID-19 before herd immunity brought the reproductive number below 1.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      That doesn't make what I'm saying un-true. 20% of the population getting it is enourmous and demonstrates that the effect of herd immunity on the flu is negligible. At 20% infection rate annually after a few years, everyone's had it. But due to the virus propensity to mutate, we don't see herd immunity for the flu. Each new strain resets the counters. We would see it for COVID. And chances are 15% of us have already had it according to the Gangelt survey.
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        Without pre-existing immunity, a much larger fraction of the population would get flu each year. That's one of the primary reasons why people worry about pandemic flu, as opposed to the regular seasonal flu. An entirely new strain has the potential to infect a much larger share of the population than the regular seasonal flu, precisely because there's no pre-existing immunity. > chances are 15% of us have already had it according to the Gangelt survey. No, that's a completely unfounded conclusion to draw from that study. Gangelt was chosen precisely because it was an extremely hard-hit town. Researchers wanted wanted good statistics, so they went to the place that has the largest case density. There was an early superspreading event in Gangelt, during Carnival celebrations back in February. Hundreds of people came into close contact with a known infected person. The population of the town is only 12,000 to begin with.
burrows 6y ago
> 3. I'm sure people of all ages think their life is very valuable, and very few people consider themselves candidates for sacrifice. Certainly not for privacy concerns. This guy also brought us, “childfuckers bad, no crypto for you”. And don’t forget, “Arab scary, we track your emails”

antpls 6y ago

It could only work if everyone wear a phone. And then what's next? Forcing everyone by law to always wear a phone at all time? I would rather see new phone sensors that scan the air, the breath and the body for diseases than a new tracking technology. We could also develop new medicines, etc. Not tracking. Edit : we also don't have much knowledge about why the virus is more lethal for some people than others. We should focus effort at predicting who will be asymptomatic and who will develop complications, rather than trying to stop the virus from spreading by isolating people

arcticbull 6y ago

1. It's old people AND people with comorbidities, which is a ton of people. Yep, and they should shelter in place. Nobody else should. 2. Lots of old people, which for Covid is about 65, still work full time jobs. Some of them fly every week. These aren't 95+ year olds. Yep, and they should shelter in place, because they're in a risk category. 3. I'm sure people of all ages think their life is very valuable, and very few people consider themselves candidates for sacrifice. Certainly not for privacy concerns. That's an unfortunate way of looking at this. The reality is everything we do in life involves risk. There's risk of harm in shutting down the economy, and there's risk of harm in opening the doors. The lifetime risk of death being involved in a car accident is 1%. The lifetime risk of dying of an opioid overdose is 2%. COVID is much lower than both. Locked inside domestic violence is up, alcoholism is up -- liquor stores are considered essential so alcoholics won't come in to hospital due to withdrawal. What we do know is if we lock things down, then one person flies in from a foreign country with the disease the whole thing starts over. Hiding inside is not a sustainable strategy. Which is why Sweden remains open for business. And you know what? They're doing just fine [1]. 4. 10x deadlier than the flu. It is not. We do not know how deadly it is, all we know is that of people who go to the hospital (implying that they're showing serious symptoms) between 0% and 9% of people, depending on their age and comorbidities, die. That's adverse selection sampling bias. Studies show there's huge, huge quantities of people who either show no symptoms at all (which is the thing that makes this disease a challenge) or exhibit mild flu-like symptoms. The numbers we're seeing are an upper-bound, by an order of magnitude. It's likely in line with the flu, although we should consider in line with the flu is bad -- it kills 650,000 people each and every year we've been alive. It's also much harder to immunize against the flu (19-60% effective) due to its propensity to mutate and the huge number of strains that show up each season, with different ones being dominant each year. On the other hand, COVID does not mutate -- or has not yet. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasquith/2020/04/04/no-lockdowns-in-sweden-as-stockholm-remains-open-parks-and-open-air-museums-operating/#77737bef707a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasquith/2020/04/04/no-lock...

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
The ratio of asymptomatic to symptomatic people has been measured, and it's not nearly as high as you're saying. China has been quarantining and testing every single person entering the country, and they find that 2/3rds of cases are asymptomatic. Moreover, Germany has conducted a randomized serological survey of the population of one town where there was a large outbreak, and determined that the true mortality rate was about 0.4%, which is an order of magnitude higher than mortality due to the flu. That's the mortality if there's excellent healthcare and the system isn't overwhelmed. Mortality will also depend on the age structure of the population, rates of obesity and smoking, etc. Because a large fraction of the population is immune to the seasonal flu (both through vaccination and previous infection), far fewer people contract it than would contract CoVID-19 in an uncontrolled epidemic. The combination of a much larger rate of infection than the flu and far higher mortality means that CoVID-19 would kill orders of magnitude more people in one year.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > Moreover, Germany has conducted a randomized serological survey of the population of one town where there was a large outbreak... 1. Results showed 0.37% mortality rate, which is an order of magnitude lower than the fatality rates being published, which is what I claimed -- so I re-iterate: "The numbers we're seeing are an upper-bound, by an order of magnitude." [1] 2. 14% of their town has had it already. [1] 3. That 0.37% rate includes all the old and at-risk folks which I was already suggesting we isolate. Since we know the fatality rate for them is 9% in hospital vs 0.1%, I'd suggest that the actual mortality rate of my plan would be incredibly low. [1] We don't know the demographic distribution of the town, and we do know that the disease is incredibly age-dependent so it's hard to project that onto the population. Either way the flu is 0.1% so this isn't 10X worse, it's 3.7X worse. At most. 4. The study shows 15% of them are already immune to COVID. [edit] I found the data [2]. Out of a population of 12,000, 6500 of them are in a risk group (over 45). So 55% of town. This needs to be projected onto the world population factoring into account non-linear risk response. > Because a large fraction of the population is immune to the seasonal flu (both through vaccination and previous infection), far fewer people contract it than would contract CoVID-19 in an uncontrolled epidemic. I don't think they are. The flu mutates regularly, and there's a ton of strains. Vaccinations are only 19-60% effective depending on the year. This is evidenced by the 650,000 worldwide deaths (60,000 US) and the 45,000,000 US cases of the flu each year. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people-are-now-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tes... [2] https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/nordrheinwestfalen/heinsberg/05370008__gangelt/ https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/nordrheinwestfalen/...

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

4. And there's no preexisting immunity, unlike with the seasonal flu. Left unchecked, CoVID-19 will infect a much larger share of the population than flu.

arcticbull 6y ago
That's not actually true. The seasonal flu affects 45,000,000 americans every year, and in part because it (a) mutates and (b) there's a huge number of strains, and different ones are dominant in different years. The flu shot is not particularly effective for those reasons (19-60% depending on the year). COVID however, does not mutate, or has not yet. This means herd immunity is on the table, and so is a ~100% reliable vaccine -- like MMR, not like flu shot.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  It is true. A substantial fraction of the population is immune to the circulating seasonal flu, both through vaccination and previous infection with closely related strains. Only 5-20% of the population gets the flu each year. 60-70% of the population would have to get CoVID-19 before herd immunity brought the reproductive number below 1.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    That doesn't make what I'm saying un-true. 20% of the population getting it is enourmous and demonstrates that the effect of herd immunity on the flu is negligible. At 20% infection rate annually after a few years, everyone's had it. But due to the virus propensity to mutate, we don't see herd immunity for the flu. Each new strain resets the counters. We would see it for COVID. And chances are 15% of us have already had it according to the Gangelt survey.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      Without pre-existing immunity, a much larger fraction of the population would get flu each year. That's one of the primary reasons why people worry about pandemic flu, as opposed to the regular seasonal flu. An entirely new strain has the potential to infect a much larger share of the population than the regular seasonal flu, precisely because there's no pre-existing immunity. > chances are 15% of us have already had it according to the Gangelt survey. No, that's a completely unfounded conclusion to draw from that study. Gangelt was chosen precisely because it was an extremely hard-hit town. Researchers wanted wanted good statistics, so they went to the place that has the largest case density. There was an early superspreading event in Gangelt, during Carnival celebrations back in February. Hundreds of people came into close contact with a known infected person. The population of the town is only 12,000 to begin with.

burrows 6y ago

> 3. I'm sure people of all ages think their life is very valuable, and very few people consider themselves candidates for sacrifice. Certainly not for privacy concerns. This guy also brought us, “childfuckers bad, no crypto for you”. And don’t forget, “Arab scary, we track your emails”