4 ms·

A 1% mortality rate is much higher than the ballpark. A recent study which was featured on Hacker News estimated the infection fatality rate at 0.66%. [1] The

A 1% mortality rate is much higher than the ballpark. A recent study which was featured on Hacker News estimated the infection fatality rate at 0.66%. [1] The IFR represents how many of those who got it and ended up dead (regardless of whether their case was tested, diagnosed or confirmed). It doesn't represent the whole population. The same study estimated 60-80% of people could eventually contract the disease. 70% * 0.66% = 0.46% mortality rate from the disease. This would equate to about 35 million people globally. (70% infection rate is not going to happen overnight and I would hope that one way or another fewer people get infected than this - on the Diamond Princess where they tested nearly everyone, only about 25% of passengers got infected - but we will see.) It's important to understand the definitions of all the terms involved. A misunderstanding of the statistics has resulted in panic -- people see a 5% death rate from a specific group of confirmed cases and assume that translates to their demographic, or overall population etc. when it does not. The mortality rate is the percentage of the total population that dies. The infection fatality rate is the percentage of all cases, diagnosed or undiagnosed. The case fatality rate is the percentage of diagnosed cases. [2] Not saying it's not a serious disease, 35 million deaths is many many times more than the flu. But we aren't going to lose 1% of humanity to this disease. And personally I would advocate for a smart and measured response like we've seen in South Korea or Taiwan over a panicked and destructive response like we are seeing in the US and UK. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Losing 1% of humanity and losing 0.5% of humanity are in the same neighborhood of terrible.
- apatters 7y ago
  Actually I would argue they are not the same when your solution will force some number of people into poverty (plus in the US cause them to lose their health care). No one wants to have to think about these numbers, but if you're responsible for making policy, it's very important to have good estimates of how many lives your policy will save and how many it will ruin. If you don't you're just reacting to the latest panic in the news cycle as sadly far too many politicians do. Data matters, facts matter.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    > Data matters, facts matter. You're talking about a difference between a massive number of people dying, and a massive number divided by two dying, and then arguing that a massive number divided by two is not nearly as serious. Nobody knows what the true numbers will be, but only the rough range they'll be in, so arguing over a factor of two is meaningless. These are terrifying numbers either way. > If you don't you're just reacting to the latest panic in the news cycle as sadly far too many politicians do. The "panic" is caused by people finally listening to what epidemiologists have been saying for months. False calm has been far more damaging on this pandemic than panic. If politicians had listened to the panic mongers earlier, the world wouldn't be in this situation.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Poverty kills people, too. That has to be considered when deciding on the appropriate response.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        And lying in bed all day kills people too. I'm concerned about elderly people I know who aren't getting enough activity during the lockdown.
        DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        If there's a rigorous nationwide shutdown for 6 weeks, then the economy can partially open up again and people can go out more (people can still go outside now, as long as they stay away from people they don't live with - I know plenty of old people who are in self-imposed quarantine but still go on walks). This also requires the US to build up its testing and contact-tracing capabilities, so that it can keep the virus from getting out of control again. Unfortunately, the short-sighted rush to reopen everything too quickly, or not to shut it down in the first place, is undermining these efforts. The shutdown worked in China, where it was strictly observed and enforced for several weeks. I hope the US can do the same.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

Losing 1% of humanity and losing 0.5% of humanity are in the same neighborhood of terrible.

apatters 7y ago
Actually I would argue they are not the same when your solution will force some number of people into poverty (plus in the US cause them to lose their health care). No one wants to have to think about these numbers, but if you're responsible for making policy, it's very important to have good estimates of how many lives your policy will save and how many it will ruin. If you don't you're just reacting to the latest panic in the news cycle as sadly far too many politicians do. Data matters, facts matter.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > Data matters, facts matter. You're talking about a difference between a massive number of people dying, and a massive number divided by two dying, and then arguing that a massive number divided by two is not nearly as serious. Nobody knows what the true numbers will be, but only the rough range they'll be in, so arguing over a factor of two is meaningless. These are terrifying numbers either way. > If you don't you're just reacting to the latest panic in the news cycle as sadly far too many politicians do. The "panic" is caused by people finally listening to what epidemiologists have been saying for months. False calm has been far more damaging on this pandemic than panic. If politicians had listened to the panic mongers earlier, the world wouldn't be in this situation.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Poverty kills people, too. That has to be considered when deciding on the appropriate response.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      And lying in bed all day kills people too. I'm concerned about elderly people I know who aren't getting enough activity during the lockdown.
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        If there's a rigorous nationwide shutdown for 6 weeks, then the economy can partially open up again and people can go out more (people can still go outside now, as long as they stay away from people they don't live with - I know plenty of old people who are in self-imposed quarantine but still go on walks). This also requires the US to build up its testing and contact-tracing capabilities, so that it can keep the virus from getting out of control again. Unfortunately, the short-sighted rush to reopen everything too quickly, or not to shut it down in the first place, is undermining these efforts. The shutdown worked in China, where it was strictly observed and enforced for several weeks. I hope the US can do the same.