9 ms·

> They are likely not considering that even the younger are taking as much as a 1% risk of their life, which is incredibly high. Depending on factors like the l

> They are likely not considering that even the younger are taking as much as a 1% risk of their life, which is incredibly high. Depending on factors like the load on the medical community at the time and others, it can get as high as 5% or more quite easily as we have seen around the world. Currently using only napkin math from the numbers here[1], the death rate is currently at just under 4% over all age groups in the US. Those are pretty high numbers. Using a Lancet study (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...), IFR is just under 0.1% for a 30 something year old. Hospitalization rates are at 3.5% (2-7% confidence), so a death rate (for 30 year olds) even under a collapsing medical systems for younger people is highly unlikely to get close to 5%. All said, a 0.1% death rate is still pretty dangerous and catching the disease is something like raising your risk of death by 50% in a given year. Lockdowns are still justified under those numbers. > Finally, flu deaths almost exclusively happen in the immunocompromised and elderly, while COVID-19 affects younger people a LOT more. Well, and old people even more. Are the relative risk ratios actually different for covid vs. flu - or are we just seeing the effect of a disease that is 7xish a really bad flu season? (For young children actually, I believe covid outcomes are better than flu.)

umvi 7y ago
> Lockdowns are still justified under those numbers. And what if the effects of an extended lockdown is a tanked ecomony with a 3x increase in suicides for the next decade? Is it still justified? Lockdowns are only justified if the only variable you are optimizing for is "number of covid-19 deaths". Yet there are hundreds of other variables that we are ignoring in our quest to minimize that one variable. Impossible to tell now, but tanking the economy to flatten the curve may end up indirectly killing even more people in the long run.
- usaar333 7y ago
  Fair point. In some sense, I share your feelings a bit (in a lighter sense). The park closings some Bay Area counties are doing (e.g. San Mateo) feel not justified; I'm also not sure why the SIP was extended all the way into May given the existing downward trajectory. [Looking at both Seattle and Iceland, you don't need full-on SIP to keep R at 1]
aianus 7y ago
> All said, a 0.1% death rate is still pretty dangerous and catching the disease is something like raising your risk of death by 50% in a given year. Lockdowns are still justified under those numbers. 0.1% of the rest of my life is ~3 weeks. The lockdown has already cost me more of my life than a confirmed case of COVID-19 would (on average). And the math doesn't get much better the older you get, an 85 year old has the same chance of dying of natural causes during a 12 month lockdown as he has from actually contracting COVID-19.
- usaar333 7y ago
  That is an interesting point and I'm not sure how public health officials are treating it. I'm in tech WFH so I don't see even half my life being lost from the lockdown (maybe 20%), but YMMV.

umvi 7y ago

> Lockdowns are still justified under those numbers. And what if the effects of an extended lockdown is a tanked ecomony with a 3x increase in suicides for the next decade? Is it still justified? Lockdowns are only justified if the only variable you are optimizing for is "number of covid-19 deaths". Yet there are hundreds of other variables that we are ignoring in our quest to minimize that one variable. Impossible to tell now, but tanking the economy to flatten the curve may end up indirectly killing even more people in the long run.

usaar333 7y ago
Fair point. In some sense, I share your feelings a bit (in a lighter sense). The park closings some Bay Area counties are doing (e.g. San Mateo) feel not justified; I'm also not sure why the SIP was extended all the way into May given the existing downward trajectory. [Looking at both Seattle and Iceland, you don't need full-on SIP to keep R at 1]

aianus 7y ago

> All said, a 0.1% death rate is still pretty dangerous and catching the disease is something like raising your risk of death by 50% in a given year. Lockdowns are still justified under those numbers. 0.1% of the rest of my life is ~3 weeks. The lockdown has already cost me more of my life than a confirmed case of COVID-19 would (on average). And the math doesn't get much better the older you get, an 85 year old has the same chance of dying of natural causes during a 12 month lockdown as he has from actually contracting COVID-19.

usaar333 7y ago
That is an interesting point and I'm not sure how public health officials are treating it. I'm in tech WFH so I don't see even half my life being lost from the lockdown (maybe 20%), but YMMV.