3 ms·

My post above just stated the facts as they are today or a couple years ago, with citations and uncertainty ranges. Do you have a strong prediction for the fut

• DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Your post above compared deaths so far due to COVID-19 to yearly deaths due to influenza. That's a very silly comparison, because we're only in the very early stages of the outbreak. The outbreak is growing exponentially at this point, and basic epidemiological models say that it will continue to do so until a significant fraction of the population becomes infected. COVID-19 is estimated to have an R_0 of around 2.4, meaning that if nothing is done to lower transmission, the epidemic will only begin to recede once approximately 1-1/2.4 = 0.58 (58%) of the population is infected. The current doubling time for the epidemic is 3 days in the US, meaning that the US will reach the saturation level of ~58% of the population infected sometime this May. In the face of the cold logic of exponential growth in epidemiology, you can't try to reassure people by pointing to the current numbers of infections. You have to look at R_0 (~2.4), the level of preexisting immunity (0%), and the mortality rate (~1%), and act accordingly. I don't want to see 2 million Americans dead by the end of May. Pointing out that only a few hundred have died so far and asking me to ignore basic epidemiology doesn't reassure me.
  • xscott 7y ago
    No one asked you to ignore anything, and my goal is certainly not to reassure you. Very silly or not, I'm not making predictions - I'm just keeping track of a few of you who are. Are you predicting 2 million Americans dead from COVID-19 by the end of May? If you feel confident in your predictions, make a strong claim. If you're less confident, put some error margins around your claim. If you need to put some caveats (i.e. "strict"), be specific. If you're uncertain, it would be more intellectually honest if you indicated that when you post.
    • DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      This isn't some little game. This is a serious situation. You're going around suggesting that maybe we can ignore basic epidemiology. There is a strong push right now in the United States to play down the epidemic and get people back to work. The best information available right now indicates an R_0 of between 2 and 3. With 0% preexisting immunity, that means that around 60% of the population will be infected, unless strict social distancing measures are implemented. With the observed doubling time of about 3 days, the epidemic will burn through the population by early May. The mortality rate is around 1%, based on the available information, meaning that about 2 million Americans will die. This can be averted, but not by pretending that epidemiology is potentially all wrong. It can be averted by things like the shelter-in-place orders made by certain governors.
      • xscott 7y ago
        I didn't suggest ignoring anything. Please quit putting words into my mouth, it's dishonest. I'm currently much more concerned about what will happen economically and politically because of this thing. There are real and awful consequences to all of this panic that have nothing to do with dying from the virus. Several states have already issued shelter in place orders. From what I can see, my state (which has not) is taking it very seriously regardless. So you get to keep doing your fear mongering predictions of 2 million deaths, and then later you get to say, "well yeah, that didn't happen because we sheltered in place".
        • DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
          > I didn't suggest ignoring anything. You responded to DanBC's comment, which extrapolated the exponential by a few weeks, by suggesting that he might be wrong and that somehow a logistic curve will set in. I responded to you by pointing out that the only things that will break exponential growth are herd immunity or strict social distancing measures. > I'm currently much more concerned about what will happen economically and politically because of this thing. That's exactly what I suspected. I think your line of thinking, which is being pushed by a lot of people now (beginning with the President of the United States) is dangerous. You're asking us to roll the dice and hope that either the laws of epidemiology will cease to hold, or that the mortality will turn out to be much lower than is currently estimated. The available information indicates that the death toll in the US from business as usual will be around 2 million people by early summer. That merits a strenuous response, even if it does damage the economy. > There are real and awful consequences to all of this panic that have nothing to do with dying from the virus. We're at the beginning of a pandemic, with 0% immunity, 60% of the population expected to become infected within several weeks, and around a 1% mortality rate. A bit of panic is justified. Better than panic, however, are strong measures implemented quickly. Luckily some states have taken those measures now. > So you get to keep doing your fear mongering predictions of 2 million deaths, and then later you get to say, "well yeah, that didn't happen because we sheltered in place". You simply can't accept the number of 2 million deaths because it's outside of your experience. It is what epidemiology predicts will happen without measures like sheltering in place. How do you think we'll avoid 2 million deaths otherwise? This virus is going to infect ~60% of the population in short order if left unchecked. Do you think the virions will suddenly decide that they don't feel like infecting anyone else? I really do hope that I get to say in the end that "that didn't happen because we sheltered in place." That's what people are already able to say in China, because they sheltered in place and stopped the epidemic. You're asking us to roll the dice and hope that the best information about the R_0 and mortality rate of the virus is incorrect. I'm looking at what happened in Northern Italy, where the hospital system was overwhelmed in two weeks, and I'm not willing to do that.