6 ms·

I did not say that anyone did try to extrapolate numbers using these percentages in this thread. I said, and am saying, that it’s important not to try to do tha

by zaroth 7y ago

I did not say that anyone did try to extrapolate numbers using these percentages in this thread. I said, and am saying, that it’s important not to try to do that. Because it leads to fear-mongering. For example, downthread, here; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22461804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22461804

jacquesm 7y ago
> I did not say that anyone did try to extrapolate numbers using these percentages in this thread. But you did imply that. Look, I am all for keeping a cool head. But at the same time I'm not going to cool my head by sticking it in the sand. I think if you're going to participate in these discussions then you probably should do so by making your statements a lot clearer than you do. If you - for instance - idd not intend to suggest that someone did try to extrapolate those numbers then you did a poor job of it. You can't just make up strawmen and then suggest people shouldn't do that. The comment you linked to was properly qualified and is not fearmongering. If you think that is fearmongering then you possibly have a reading / comprehension issue. Let me help you by picking that comment apart: > The 1.4% apply to the general population. You can't really argue with that I think, > For people over 80, the fatality rate is 15%. Not exactly correct, I have it at 14.8% once infected and showing symptoms. But close enough. > There are roughly 13 million people over 80 in the US [1]. This is properly cited. > If everyone gets infected, a fatality rate of 15% means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone. Again, this is properly qualified by the leading 'If' > With the 1.4% figure it's 4.6 million over the entire US population. Again, with the implied assumption that people are all infected, something that is unlikely to happen. > As a comparison, the number of yearly deaths in the US caused by influenza is in the 5 digits. This is correct as far as I know, between 10 and 60K cases annually ranging from very good years to very bad ones. > World war 2 killed 3% of the world population over a range of multiple years [2]. Can't argue with that. > If the coronavirus kills only 1% of the current world population, its death toll in absolute numbers will be equal to WW2. Again, properly qualified by a conditional. > I think at this point, the disease can't be contained, its spread only slowed. I don't think anybody is arguing that it can be contained still, even the WHO has moved on this, though they kept it up for longer than I personally think was responsible. > Everyone will be exposed to it sooner or later. Probably correct, similar to the flu, most people get exposed to it in their lives and usually once per year. > Fortunately though there are treatments, and there are already candidates for vaccines. The question is only how quickly and how well those treatments can be deployed. If there is one part of this comment that I have issues with then it is this one. There are - as far as I know - no vaccine candidates that have been trialed. I'm happy to be proven wrong here so any link is welcome. > The less people have the disease at the same time, the better. And that is the key insight: the whole thing revolves around managing the capacity to deal with the people that are ill. That and effectively reducing R0 < 1 are the main tools that we have at this stage to deal with this particular virus.
- zaroth 7y ago
  You asked for an extrapolation example, I gave that one. OK, so we agree people are extrapolating with these numbers. Now, you want to keep playing that game. To extrapolate over the general population with the 1.4% case fatality of serious hospital cases, would be wrong and would be fear mongering. The general population does not have a infection rate of 100% nor a case fatality rate of 1.4%. So the premise is wrong, the assumptions are wrong, and the result are wrong. >> If everyone gets infected, a fatality rate of 15% means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone. > Again, this is properly qualified by the leading 'If' Qualifying a statement ending with ”means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone.” with a qualifier that is false is what I would call fearmongering. >> With the 1.4% figure it's 4.6 million over the entire US population. > Again, with the implied assumption that people are all infected, something that is unlikely to happen. No, it’s not an “implied assumption” it’s faulty epidemiology. First, it is faulty to assume that everyone who is exposed will be infected. Second, it is faulty to apply the 1.4% case fatality rate of serious hospital infections to the entire US population. The assumptions are wrong. The figures are wrong. The result is wrong. It is putting false information based on poor understanding of the facts into the discussion and it’s gone totally off the rails. Please, you should seriously reconsider why you are supporting this.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > Now, you want to keep playing that game. I am not playing games. This stuff is far too serious to play games over. > To extrapolate over the general population with the 1.4% case fatality of serious hospital cases, would be wrong and would be fear mongering. The general population does not have a infection rate of 100% nor a case fatality rate of 1.4%. No, but the Spanish Flu for instance had an infection rate of about 25%, and the general infected population could very well be above that 1.4% (in fact, there is every indication so far that it will end up somewhere between 2 and 3%). > So the premise is wrong, the assumptions are wrong, and the result are wrong. The premises isn't nearly as faulty as you make it out to be, it might be off by a factor of four, hopefully much less than that. But so far - taking Wuhan as our baseline - unchecked this thing will spread very fast and kill lots of people. The only reason the onslaught was halted is because the Chinese took a bunch of draconian counter measures, the likes of which very few countries in the world will be able to copy. > Qualifying a statement ending with ”means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone.” with a qualifier that is false is what I would call fearmongering. That's fine by me. But it isn't. As a whole it isn't and in the details it isn't either. We actually have precedent for this whole situation, it is the 1918 pandemic and the world apparently hasn't learned its lesson fully. Which may mean we are about to re-learn it the hard way. Maybe this time it will stick. But then - as now - there were plenty of people like you who were willfully - given the way this conversation is progressing I am assuming you are doing this on purpose - ignoring the cold hard facts. And that made the pandemic much worse than it had to be. Large events were not called off and led to the disease spreading much further than it had to. Absent an effective anti-dote to this virus and with an overwhelmed health care system (note the qualifiers!) we might as well be in 1918. > No, it’s not an “implied assumption” it’s faulty epidemiology. Not as far as I can see. People talk about hypotheticals all the time. You can't really come out like this against a pretty clear comment and at the same time make up stuff you rail against that never happened in the first place. Fix your own issues first. > First, it is faulty to assume that everyone who is exposed will be infected. Agreed, so let's divide the number by 4 and call it a day. That's the worst this could possibly get. Right? Or do you think that given a sample of '1' the 1918 flu might not be the best guideline for precision and that it might be better or worse? We don't actually know the answer to that. > Second, it is faulty to apply the 1.4% case fatality rate of serious hospital infections to the entire US population. That's true. But for all the same money we end up with a higher case fatality rate. So that may end up affecting the equation in a negative way. But assuming 10% of the country becomes infected and 5% of those end up with symptoms serious enough to warrant ICU care there is a serious problem. And that 10% could very well be low. So as far as I'm concerned you should start taking this a bit more serious instead of trying to shout down the discussion. Stay dispassionate and try to argue your case with actual numbers rather than nay-saying. That way you can contribute rather than just irritate. Think of it as an opportunity to educate, and you just might learn a thing or two yourself.

by zaroth 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

> I did not say that anyone did try to extrapolate numbers using these percentages in this thread. But you did imply that. Look, I am all for keeping a cool head. But at the same time I'm not going to cool my head by sticking it in the sand. I think if you're going to participate in these discussions then you probably should do so by making your statements a lot clearer than you do. If you - for instance - idd not intend to suggest that someone did try to extrapolate those numbers then you did a poor job of it. You can't just make up strawmen and then suggest people shouldn't do that. The comment you linked to was properly qualified and is not fearmongering. If you think that is fearmongering then you possibly have a reading / comprehension issue. Let me help you by picking that comment apart: > The 1.4% apply to the general population. You can't really argue with that I think, > For people over 80, the fatality rate is 15%. Not exactly correct, I have it at 14.8% once infected and showing symptoms. But close enough. > There are roughly 13 million people over 80 in the US [1]. This is properly cited. > If everyone gets infected, a fatality rate of 15% means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone. Again, this is properly qualified by the leading 'If' > With the 1.4% figure it's 4.6 million over the entire US population. Again, with the implied assumption that people are all infected, something that is unlikely to happen. > As a comparison, the number of yearly deaths in the US caused by influenza is in the 5 digits. This is correct as far as I know, between 10 and 60K cases annually ranging from very good years to very bad ones. > World war 2 killed 3% of the world population over a range of multiple years [2]. Can't argue with that. > If the coronavirus kills only 1% of the current world population, its death toll in absolute numbers will be equal to WW2. Again, properly qualified by a conditional. > I think at this point, the disease can't be contained, its spread only slowed. I don't think anybody is arguing that it can be contained still, even the WHO has moved on this, though they kept it up for longer than I personally think was responsible. > Everyone will be exposed to it sooner or later. Probably correct, similar to the flu, most people get exposed to it in their lives and usually once per year. > Fortunately though there are treatments, and there are already candidates for vaccines. The question is only how quickly and how well those treatments can be deployed. If there is one part of this comment that I have issues with then it is this one. There are - as far as I know - no vaccine candidates that have been trialed. I'm happy to be proven wrong here so any link is welcome. > The less people have the disease at the same time, the better. And that is the key insight: the whole thing revolves around managing the capacity to deal with the people that are ill. That and effectively reducing R0 < 1 are the main tools that we have at this stage to deal with this particular virus.

zaroth 7y ago
You asked for an extrapolation example, I gave that one. OK, so we agree people are extrapolating with these numbers. Now, you want to keep playing that game. To extrapolate over the general population with the 1.4% case fatality of serious hospital cases, would be wrong and would be fear mongering. The general population does not have a infection rate of 100% nor a case fatality rate of 1.4%. So the premise is wrong, the assumptions are wrong, and the result are wrong. >> If everyone gets infected, a fatality rate of 15% means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone. > Again, this is properly qualified by the leading 'If' Qualifying a statement ending with ”means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone.” with a qualifier that is false is what I would call fearmongering. >> With the 1.4% figure it's 4.6 million over the entire US population. > Again, with the implied assumption that people are all infected, something that is unlikely to happen. No, it’s not an “implied assumption” it’s faulty epidemiology. First, it is faulty to assume that everyone who is exposed will be infected. Second, it is faulty to apply the 1.4% case fatality rate of serious hospital infections to the entire US population. The assumptions are wrong. The figures are wrong. The result is wrong. It is putting false information based on poor understanding of the facts into the discussion and it’s gone totally off the rails. Please, you should seriously reconsider why you are supporting this.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > Now, you want to keep playing that game. I am not playing games. This stuff is far too serious to play games over. > To extrapolate over the general population with the 1.4% case fatality of serious hospital cases, would be wrong and would be fear mongering. The general population does not have a infection rate of 100% nor a case fatality rate of 1.4%. No, but the Spanish Flu for instance had an infection rate of about 25%, and the general infected population could very well be above that 1.4% (in fact, there is every indication so far that it will end up somewhere between 2 and 3%). > So the premise is wrong, the assumptions are wrong, and the result are wrong. The premises isn't nearly as faulty as you make it out to be, it might be off by a factor of four, hopefully much less than that. But so far - taking Wuhan as our baseline - unchecked this thing will spread very fast and kill lots of people. The only reason the onslaught was halted is because the Chinese took a bunch of draconian counter measures, the likes of which very few countries in the world will be able to copy. > Qualifying a statement ending with ”means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone.” with a qualifier that is false is what I would call fearmongering. That's fine by me. But it isn't. As a whole it isn't and in the details it isn't either. We actually have precedent for this whole situation, it is the 1918 pandemic and the world apparently hasn't learned its lesson fully. Which may mean we are about to re-learn it the hard way. Maybe this time it will stick. But then - as now - there were plenty of people like you who were willfully - given the way this conversation is progressing I am assuming you are doing this on purpose - ignoring the cold hard facts. And that made the pandemic much worse than it had to be. Large events were not called off and led to the disease spreading much further than it had to. Absent an effective anti-dote to this virus and with an overwhelmed health care system (note the qualifiers!) we might as well be in 1918. > No, it’s not an “implied assumption” it’s faulty epidemiology. Not as far as I can see. People talk about hypotheticals all the time. You can't really come out like this against a pretty clear comment and at the same time make up stuff you rail against that never happened in the first place. Fix your own issues first. > First, it is faulty to assume that everyone who is exposed will be infected. Agreed, so let's divide the number by 4 and call it a day. That's the worst this could possibly get. Right? Or do you think that given a sample of '1' the 1918 flu might not be the best guideline for precision and that it might be better or worse? We don't actually know the answer to that. > Second, it is faulty to apply the 1.4% case fatality rate of serious hospital infections to the entire US population. That's true. But for all the same money we end up with a higher case fatality rate. So that may end up affecting the equation in a negative way. But assuming 10% of the country becomes infected and 5% of those end up with symptoms serious enough to warrant ICU care there is a serious problem. And that 10% could very well be low. So as far as I'm concerned you should start taking this a bit more serious instead of trying to shout down the discussion. Stay dispassionate and try to argue your case with actual numbers rather than nay-saying. That way you can contribute rather than just irritate. Think of it as an opportunity to educate, and you just might learn a thing or two yourself.