3 ms·

The unanswered question of the GP is why you'd expect only 1% of the US population to be infect? I can't see the slightest basis for such an assumption. This a

The unanswered question of the GP is why you'd expect only 1% of the US population to be infect? I can't see the slightest basis for such an assumption. This an extremely infectious, quickly spreading disease. 30% of the US population seem like a more likely estimate. SK has a 1.3% fatality rate at the end but that was with a functioning health case system. If even 1% of the US population get infect, the health system won't be function and you'll have a higher fatality rate.

Barrin92 7y ago
>The unanswered question of the GP is why you'd expect only 1% of the US population to be infect? Ioannidis addresses this in the article. Extensive community spread is actually unlikely to be the case for this virus, epidemic development is hard to discern from simply increasing rates in testing and sensitive populations seeking testing, and maybe most importantly there is little evidence that lockdowns and other extreme measures have significant impact on reducing this sort of respiratory infection, he cites this paper. [1] " The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children.[...]Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure." [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735402 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735402
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  But talk about lack of data. This is looking at the spread of a different virus - a virus that certainly does not have the infectiousness of the Covid virus. So the this pure speculation.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. The question remains however why we ought to treat concerns about data about the virus different than concerns about data about the response to the virus. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? It seems ironic that people critize Ioannidis for a sort of first-order error in thinking by not considering uncertainty. Yet causing damage and applying first-order thinking to disruption of global supply chains that likely will drive entire nations into deep recession and instability is apparently adequate.
    - joe_the_user 7y ago
      It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. The article is a specious disaster. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? An extreme provokes an extreme response? Of course? Human lives are more important than economies. And economies can't function with massive loss of life anyway. Even more, this is a massive exogenous shock. Once it's done, the various players can pick up the pieces. Until then, it should be treated like a war. Society trumps economics (hopefully, otherwise both are headed for disaster, 1 million deaths+ was the Imperial College Report estimate for what happens if the US does nothing).
      - Barrin92 7y ago
        >Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. They do actually. Several of the outbreaks studied among the papers were influenza pandemics, coronavirus pandemics, and SARS. (page ~110-120) This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Which may, in fact, be literal war in some places. There is a trade-off between the economic effects and response to the virus. It is not a binary question.
        TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
        Doesn’t influenzas cause a pandemic every year? I’ve read from various sources influenza cause multiple hundred-thousand deaths every year.
        leereeves 7y ago
        Yes, influenza causes over 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die-of-influenza-worldwide-than-who-estimated https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die...
- scarmig 7y ago
  His own numbers predict fewer deaths in Italy than it's already reported. The lockdown in Italy has, thankfully, seemed to limit the virus to sublinear growth, using the very small sample of the past three days.
zabana 7y ago
Infected != Ill != death
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  Once the hospitals run out of ventilators and supplies and once the doctors are all sick themselves. Then sick-with-serious-viral-pneumonia = dead, for a large portion of the sick. Infected != sick, no doubt but we know the ratio of infected to sick over time, despite Ioannidis' disgraceful efforts to cast doubt here.
  - zabana 7y ago
    that's not what the WHO says

Barrin92 7y ago

>The unanswered question of the GP is why you'd expect only 1% of the US population to be infect? Ioannidis addresses this in the article. Extensive community spread is actually unlikely to be the case for this virus, epidemic development is hard to discern from simply increasing rates in testing and sensitive populations seeking testing, and maybe most importantly there is little evidence that lockdowns and other extreme measures have significant impact on reducing this sort of respiratory infection, he cites this paper. [1] " The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children.[...]Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure." [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735402 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735402

joe_the_user 7y ago
But talk about lack of data. This is looking at the spread of a different virus - a virus that certainly does not have the infectiousness of the Covid virus. So the this pure speculation.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. The question remains however why we ought to treat concerns about data about the virus different than concerns about data about the response to the virus. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? It seems ironic that people critize Ioannidis for a sort of first-order error in thinking by not considering uncertainty. Yet causing damage and applying first-order thinking to disruption of global supply chains that likely will drive entire nations into deep recession and instability is apparently adequate.
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. The article is a specious disaster. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? An extreme provokes an extreme response? Of course? Human lives are more important than economies. And economies can't function with massive loss of life anyway. Even more, this is a massive exogenous shock. Once it's done, the various players can pick up the pieces. Until then, it should be treated like a war. Society trumps economics (hopefully, otherwise both are headed for disaster, 1 million deaths+ was the Imperial College Report estimate for what happens if the US does nothing).
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      >Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. They do actually. Several of the outbreaks studied among the papers were influenza pandemics, coronavirus pandemics, and SARS. (page ~110-120) This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Which may, in fact, be literal war in some places. There is a trade-off between the economic effects and response to the virus. It is not a binary question.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
        Doesn’t influenzas cause a pandemic every year? I’ve read from various sources influenza cause multiple hundred-thousand deaths every year.
        leereeves 7y ago
        Yes, influenza causes over 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die-of-influenza-worldwide-than-who-estimated https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die...
scarmig 7y ago
His own numbers predict fewer deaths in Italy than it's already reported. The lockdown in Italy has, thankfully, seemed to limit the virus to sublinear growth, using the very small sample of the past three days.

zabana 7y ago

Infected != Ill != death

joe_the_user 7y ago
Once the hospitals run out of ventilators and supplies and once the doctors are all sick themselves. Then sick-with-serious-viral-pneumonia = dead, for a large portion of the sick. Infected != sick, no doubt but we know the ratio of infected to sick over time, despite Ioannidis' disgraceful efforts to cast doubt here.
- zabana 7y ago
  that's not what the WHO says