2 ms·
Look, I appreciate the discussion, and I’m about to sign off. I just want to say, it’s easy to take the wrong numbers, multiply together, and see 100 ways that
by zaroth 7y ago
Look, I appreciate the discussion, and I’m about to sign off.
I just want to say, it’s easy to take the wrong numbers, multiply together, and see 100 ways that millions of people die. That’s fear mongering.
What I believe is that it’s incumbent on anyone who wants to participant in predictive discussions to do so responsibly and using only the best numbers that we have on hand.
Anything could happen. And this is always true, whether it’s the Ebola discussion from a while back, or SARS, or MERS, or COVID today.
You still seem to insist on claiming that we could see pervasive worldwide infection, 5% ICU admits, and 1.4%+ general population fatality. I hope you will soon realize that is not actually representative of what we are facing, where in fact, the vast majority of cases are mild or even asymptomatic. I expect this will be clear even to the most avid doomers by mid-April.
Lastly, I don’t want to go back and forth on little things, but this;
> at the same time make up stuff you rail against that never happened in the first place. Fix your own issues first.
I think you need to re-read what I originally wrote. I never strawmaned.
I said the numbers were all wrong as they were stated due to lack of proper context. I could have used the word “useless” or “misleading” instead of “wrong” and that might have been better.
I then followed up by saying it’s imperative not to try to use those numbers to extrapolate in the general population. I could have said “one must not”. I was not accusing Op of doing this.
I was trying to say that the danger of not properly qualifying the context of a percentage like case fatality is that people will misuse it by improperly extrapolating.
Then we found an example down thread which does exactly that... and you defend it anyway. Which is fine, but I stand my ground on the argument (same as the NEJM doctors) that it’s improper to extrapolate the hospital case fatality to the general population.
If one “assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%.” (NEJM)
- jacquesm 7y ago> using only the best numbers that we have on hand. But you yourself are not doing that. You quote data that has been long ago overrun by the reality on the ground. > You still seem to insist on claiming that we could see pervasive worldwide infection, 5% ICU admits, and 1.4%+ general population fatality. We could. We also could not. Let's hope for the best and plan for the worst. That way we can all laugh at this a year from now. > I hope you will soon realize that is not actually representative of what we are facing, where in fact, the vast majority of cases are mild or even asymptomatic. I do not doubt that at all. But that does not rule out that the numbers could still be quite bad. 10% infected and 1.4% CFR would be very bad news. > I expect this will be clear even to the most avid doomers by mid-April. Maybe those 'avid doomers' aren't the doomers. The doomers are the cultists and the 'we're all going to die' people. We're not all going to die. But unless we take substantial countermeasures a lot more people will die than need to. Look at Iran for a taste of that. And that's the message that should go out: reduce the opportunity for the virus to spread so that we get to R0 < 1 as soon as possible and then mop up from there. Anything less and it will just get worse and worse.
- zaroth 7y agoTo be fair, I’m quoting solid data published yesterday. And you are not disputing any of the data that I’ve quoted, or offered any “better” other then your own speculations of what could happen in overloaded scenarios. Say it with me Jacquesm... The CFR in the general population is not One point Four. The CFR in the general population is not One point Four. You keep throwing a number around and saying “it would be very bad news” when that number has no basis being used in a general population equation whatsoever!