3 ms·

I agree that we're not looking at a year's worth of data, but that was also kind of the point... we're not looking at a year's worth of data. If 97 people have

I agree that we're not looking at a year's worth of data, but that was also kind of the point... we're not looking at a year's worth of data. If 97 people have died in the US so far... you've got a _long_ way to go, even looking at an exponential growth rate, to even approach the top 10 causes of death in the US. According to the CDC 47,000 people killed themselves in 2017 [1], and that's #10. Also 100% preventable. You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm Edit: It wasn't 8 people who have died, it was 97 according to the CDC. My bad.

notacoward 7y ago
> even looking at an exponential growth rate, Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.457910/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791... Since we don't have anywhere near that many ICU beds, and there's an even more acute shortage of ventilators, a high percentage of those people wouldn't get the care they need and would therefore die - eclipsing even heart disease in the list you cite. So no, measures to reduce that exponent are not unreasonable. We need to reduce both the number of contacts people have per day and the likelihood that each contact will lead to infection. Please study some math beyond what you've only partially remembered from grade school. > You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold Those are far less likely to reach a level where they require hospitalization, let alone ICU-level care. Yes, they're preventable (not 100% BTW), but there's no danger of affecting others by increasing strain on scarce hospital resources, so it's not a very constructive comparison.
- ykevinator 7y ago
  It's amazing how many epidemiologist don't understand the difference between exponential and polynomial growth.
whycombagator 7y ago
> You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). The mask culture in the US is lacking as you point out. But there is a flu vaccine. They give those out free at every corner/office in the country, pretty much. Yet the US still sees 10s of thousands of dead per year. Also of note, the flu is less fatal (case level) & less transmittable than COVID-19. > If 97 people have died in the US so far 160[0] Look back at 1918, 1957, 1968 flu pandemics[1]. 1918 isn't too recent, but the last two mentioned killed 100k+ in the US, and at least 1 million worldwide. If we get less deaths from COVID-19 than we do with seasonal flu - that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't worth reacting to. With how easy COVID-19 spreads, the relatively high % of required hospitalization, and lack of a vaccine is exactly why Hubei/Lombardy got in the state they did. Some would prefer to "wait and see" if it gets to those levels in the US, but many would rather act now instead of later. It will certainly be interesting to see how the COVID-19 situation pans out. For the record, I hope you end up being correct! [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_pandemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_p...

notacoward 7y ago

> even looking at an exponential growth rate, Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.457910/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791... Since we don't have anywhere near that many ICU beds, and there's an even more acute shortage of ventilators, a high percentage of those people wouldn't get the care they need and would therefore die - eclipsing even heart disease in the list you cite. So no, measures to reduce that exponent are not unreasonable. We need to reduce both the number of contacts people have per day and the likelihood that each contact will lead to infection. Please study some math beyond what you've only partially remembered from grade school. > You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold Those are far less likely to reach a level where they require hospitalization, let alone ICU-level care. Yes, they're preventable (not 100% BTW), but there's no danger of affecting others by increasing strain on scarce hospital resources, so it's not a very constructive comparison.

ykevinator 7y ago
It's amazing how many epidemiologist don't understand the difference between exponential and polynomial growth.

whycombagator 7y ago

> You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). The mask culture in the US is lacking as you point out. But there is a flu vaccine. They give those out free at every corner/office in the country, pretty much. Yet the US still sees 10s of thousands of dead per year. Also of note, the flu is less fatal (case level) & less transmittable than COVID-19. > If 97 people have died in the US so far 160[0] Look back at 1918, 1957, 1968 flu pandemics[1]. 1918 isn't too recent, but the last two mentioned killed 100k+ in the US, and at least 1 million worldwide. If we get less deaths from COVID-19 than we do with seasonal flu - that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't worth reacting to. With how easy COVID-19 spreads, the relatively high % of required hospitalization, and lack of a vaccine is exactly why Hubei/Lombardy got in the state they did. Some would prefer to "wait and see" if it gets to those levels in the US, but many would rather act now instead of later. It will certainly be interesting to see how the COVID-19 situation pans out. For the record, I hope you end up being correct! [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_pandemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_p...