3 ms·

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 s

by 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
    Do you honestly believe that countries keep spare ICU capacity lying around just in case? Those ICUs are very expensive, need a ton of staff and tend to be at or close to maximum capacity.

by zaroth 7y ago

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
  Do you honestly believe that countries keep spare ICU capacity lying around just in case? Those ICUs are very expensive, need a ton of staff and tend to be at or close to maximum capacity.