2 ms·

I will unhappily eat my words if it turns out to be worse than a bad flu year. Will the people discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates over the last

by zaroth 7y ago

I will unhappily eat my words if it turns out to be worse than a bad flu year. Will the people discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates over the last week agree to eat theirs if it turns out to be less harmful than last year’s flu? Of course there are serious downsides to hysteria and doomsday prophecies. The market lost $3.4 trillion in value last week, for starters. But also real world economic impact which causes actual harm to everyday people. This has to be scientifically justified and not just political expedience.

jacquesm 7y ago
> Will the people discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates over the last week agree to eat theirs if it turns out to be less harmful than last year’s flu? I'm sure they will be very happy to do that, but I haven't seen anybody discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates, especially not on here. Link? My own comments - and I stand by those - consistently list 2-3% of those infected. That's still plenty bad and if it ends up to be less harmful than last years flu then we all have a reason for a celebration. > Of course there are serious downsides to hysteria and doomsday prophecies. The market lost $3.4 trillion in value last week, for starters. The market can will recover just as fast if it turns out to be a 'false alarm'. But right now there are no indications that it is and the only thing propping the markets up this Monday is the promise of money injected into the markets. Also, dead people typically do not recover as well as markets do. > But also real world economic impact which causes actual harm to everyday people. Yes it does. > This has to be scientifically justified and not just political expedience. I would start with my own comments if I were you. You fairly consistently mis-represent the numbers and have been called out on that before.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Here was the discussion of 5-7% from a few days ago... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22432358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22432358 > I would start with my own comments if I were you. You fairly consistently mis-represent the numbers and have been called out on that before. Please, this is false and uncalled for. Mostly, I just quote the studies.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The first part of the comment is immediately followed by a qualifier. > Please, this is false and uncalled for. Mostly, I just quote the studies. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22452274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22452274 You quote the studies, but fail to understand the context of the studies. For the most part these assume access to healthcare is available for those infected. The big point that you are - apparently, correct me if I am wrong - missing is that once the healthcare system is overwhelmed the numbers will change substantially for the worse. We now have four countries where this has happened.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - zaroth 7y ago
      That’s a perfect example. The text I quoted was from the NEJM discussing the relevance of the 1.4% case fatality rate in serious hospital cases as it pertains to the general population. So it’s highly relevant to our discussion here. Here’s the article (again): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=rec... The replies I got appear to take issue with the editorial from Fauci, Lane, and Redfield (all M.D.s) I think they erroneously thought that the comment was my own writing and not a quote. > The big point that you are - apparently, correct me if I am wrong - missing is that once the healthcare system is overwhelmed the numbers will change substantially for the worse. For starters, most of the available numbers are the case fatality during a period where the healthcare system (Wuhan) was in fact massively overwhelmed. Second, you state a definitive when it is in fact an assumption. You used the word “ONCE” instead of “IF”. Third, your premise is somewhat circular. I.e. thinking along the lines of, ‘If the ICU rate is 5%, and the R0 is 4 then healthcare services will be overwhelmed making the R0 rise to 4 and the general population ICU rate spike to 5%’. If a functioning system has a overall ICU rate of 0.5% (or 0.05%) and a baseline R0 of 2, then maybe the system just keeps functioning.
      - jacquesm 7y ago

by zaroth 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

> Will the people discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates over the last week agree to eat theirs if it turns out to be less harmful than last year’s flu? I'm sure they will be very happy to do that, but I haven't seen anybody discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates, especially not on here. Link? My own comments - and I stand by those - consistently list 2-3% of those infected. That's still plenty bad and if it ends up to be less harmful than last years flu then we all have a reason for a celebration. > Of course there are serious downsides to hysteria and doomsday prophecies. The market lost $3.4 trillion in value last week, for starters. The market can will recover just as fast if it turns out to be a 'false alarm'. But right now there are no indications that it is and the only thing propping the markets up this Monday is the promise of money injected into the markets. Also, dead people typically do not recover as well as markets do. > But also real world economic impact which causes actual harm to everyday people. Yes it does. > This has to be scientifically justified and not just political expedience. I would start with my own comments if I were you. You fairly consistently mis-represent the numbers and have been called out on that before.

zaroth 7y ago
Here was the discussion of 5-7% from a few days ago... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22432358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22432358 > I would start with my own comments if I were you. You fairly consistently mis-represent the numbers and have been called out on that before. Please, this is false and uncalled for. Mostly, I just quote the studies.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  The first part of the comment is immediately followed by a qualifier. > Please, this is false and uncalled for. Mostly, I just quote the studies. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22452274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22452274 You quote the studies, but fail to understand the context of the studies. For the most part these assume access to healthcare is available for those infected. The big point that you are - apparently, correct me if I am wrong - missing is that once the healthcare system is overwhelmed the numbers will change substantially for the worse. We now have four countries where this has happened.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zaroth 7y ago
    That’s a perfect example. The text I quoted was from the NEJM discussing the relevance of the 1.4% case fatality rate in serious hospital cases as it pertains to the general population. So it’s highly relevant to our discussion here. Here’s the article (again): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=rec... The replies I got appear to take issue with the editorial from Fauci, Lane, and Redfield (all M.D.s) I think they erroneously thought that the comment was my own writing and not a quote. > The big point that you are - apparently, correct me if I am wrong - missing is that once the healthcare system is overwhelmed the numbers will change substantially for the worse. For starters, most of the available numbers are the case fatality during a period where the healthcare system (Wuhan) was in fact massively overwhelmed. Second, you state a definitive when it is in fact an assumption. You used the word “ONCE” instead of “IF”. Third, your premise is somewhat circular. I.e. thinking along the lines of, ‘If the ICU rate is 5%, and the R0 is 4 then healthcare services will be overwhelmed making the R0 rise to 4 and the general population ICU rate spike to 5%’. If a functioning system has a overall ICU rate of 0.5% (or 0.05%) and a baseline R0 of 2, then maybe the system just keeps functioning.
    - jacquesm 7y ago