5 ms·

It’s not 0.5% it’s closer to 2%. You don’t have a normal economy if people don’t want to go out in public or the supply chain is interrupted as workers get sic

It’s not 0.5% it’s closer to 2%. You don’t have a normal economy if people don’t want to go out in public or the supply chain is interrupted as workers get sick. A pandemic will harm the economy no matter what we do, these efforts, it is hoped, will reduce the impact while also saving lives and the hospital system.

eightysixfour 7y ago
And that also assumes everyone can get medical care, if all of the cases are happening at the same time, the mortality rate would increase as resource constraints force medical providers to pick who gets care.
apatters 7y ago
What's your source for 2%? A recent study which was featured on Hacker News estimated the infection fatality rate at 0.66%. [1] I have seen a number of studies putting the case fatality rate at 2-3%, but this number cannot be generalized to the entire population because current testing is skewed toward the most serious cases. [2] Long-term mortality in the total population may look something like 0.66% * 0.7 assuming there are no advances in treatment (possible but unlikely, given the unprecedented efforts that are underway, and how naive we were on day one). In general more recent studies estimating IFR should be more accurate, early ones came with a lot of caveats. If there is a better estimate of IFR than 0.66%, I would like to read it. [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 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22828691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22828691
- khuey 7y ago
  The CFR in Italy is nearly 13%. Even if you make incredibly generous assumptions that there are no unreported deaths and they're only catching 10% of cases that still leaves the infection fatality rate at twice the number you propose
  - apatters 7y ago
    With an older population, a problematic medical system, and being caught totally unprepared, isn't Italy the worst case scenario? I don't think it would be representative of what's going to happen in other countries from here on out.
    - khuey 7y ago
      I don't know where this meme came from that Italy has a "problematic medical system" but that's certainly not true in Lombardy.
    - ModernMech 7y ago
      The US has a population riddled with comorbitities (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.), a problematic medical system, and was caught totally unprepared. Isn't the US the worst case scenario, with the most deaths and most infections in the world?
    - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
      >Isn't the US the worst case scenario, with the most deaths and most infections in the world? Adjust your numbers for population. Per capita numbers for the US are far from the worse case scenario.
    - girvo 7y ago
      You pretty much just described the US.
  - marcell 7y ago
    That's almost certainly untrue. Recent studies have show that as many as 38% of the Italian population has been infected at this point [1]. That gives a fatality rate 0.03%. Let's say the official death count is 10x undercounting, you're still left with 0.3%. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/fxgk8q/early_results_from_the_italian_biolab_meleam/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/fxgk8q/early...
  - lbeltrame 7y ago
    Testing is severely undercounting cases here. People who just experience fever are told to self-isolate and aren't tested. Not all of these (luckily) end up hospitalized, so those are never, ever counted.
- saalweachter 7y ago
  I use the 0.66% number myself when estimating things, but it's worth noting that that is that papers best-guess estimated infection fatality rate for China, based on its demographics. The paper has an overall estimate of the infection fatality rate for all ages of 0.2-1.6%.
throwawaysea 7y ago
No, 2% is the case fatality rate. The true overall mortality is far lower. Germany did a randomized test recently of a town and calculated that 2% of the population is actively infected, 14% possess antibodies indicative of a current/prior infection, and overall 15% have been infected at some point. Once this broader testing was completed, the overal mortality was found to only be 0.37%. For comparison, a typical flu season is 0.1%. https://www.tagesschau.de/regional/nordrheinwestfalen/corona-studie-heinsberg-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/regional/nordrheinwestfalen/corona...
- morsch 7y ago
  For comparison, a typical flu season is 0.1%. That is incorrect. The worst flu wave to hit Germany in the last 20 years, 2017/2018, killed appoximately 25000 people (excess mortality). That's 0.03%, and it's not typical. Often, the number is much lower. Note also that the results from the Gangelt study you're referring to are preliminary; there's a press release but no paper yet, not even in preprint. https://edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/6253 https://edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/6253
  - throwaway237683 7y ago
    > That's 0.03%, and it's not typical. Often, the number is much lower. 0.03% or 0.1% or 0.66%, the number is low enough to be perceived as not too dangerous by general populace. Contrast that with 13% mortality rate for Italy that was widely spun a month ago. Now _that_ was scary!

eightysixfour 7y ago

And that also assumes everyone can get medical care, if all of the cases are happening at the same time, the mortality rate would increase as resource constraints force medical providers to pick who gets care.

apatters 7y ago

What's your source for 2%? A recent study which was featured on Hacker News estimated the infection fatality rate at 0.66%. [1] I have seen a number of studies putting the case fatality rate at 2-3%, but this number cannot be generalized to the entire population because current testing is skewed toward the most serious cases. [2] Long-term mortality in the total population may look something like 0.66% * 0.7 assuming there are no advances in treatment (possible but unlikely, given the unprecedented efforts that are underway, and how naive we were on day one). In general more recent studies estimating IFR should be more accurate, early ones came with a lot of caveats. If there is a better estimate of IFR than 0.66%, I would like to read it. [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 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22828691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22828691

khuey 7y ago
The CFR in Italy is nearly 13%. Even if you make incredibly generous assumptions that there are no unreported deaths and they're only catching 10% of cases that still leaves the infection fatality rate at twice the number you propose
- apatters 7y ago
  With an older population, a problematic medical system, and being caught totally unprepared, isn't Italy the worst case scenario? I don't think it would be representative of what's going to happen in other countries from here on out.
  - khuey 7y ago
    I don't know where this meme came from that Italy has a "problematic medical system" but that's certainly not true in Lombardy.
  - ModernMech 7y ago
    The US has a population riddled with comorbitities (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.), a problematic medical system, and was caught totally unprepared. Isn't the US the worst case scenario, with the most deaths and most infections in the world?
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    >Isn't the US the worst case scenario, with the most deaths and most infections in the world? Adjust your numbers for population. Per capita numbers for the US are far from the worse case scenario.
  - girvo 7y ago
    You pretty much just described the US.
- marcell 7y ago
  That's almost certainly untrue. Recent studies have show that as many as 38% of the Italian population has been infected at this point [1]. That gives a fatality rate 0.03%. Let's say the official death count is 10x undercounting, you're still left with 0.3%. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/fxgk8q/early_results_from_the_italian_biolab_meleam/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/fxgk8q/early...
- lbeltrame 7y ago
  Testing is severely undercounting cases here. People who just experience fever are told to self-isolate and aren't tested. Not all of these (luckily) end up hospitalized, so those are never, ever counted.
saalweachter 7y ago
I use the 0.66% number myself when estimating things, but it's worth noting that that is that papers best-guess estimated infection fatality rate for China, based on its demographics. The paper has an overall estimate of the infection fatality rate for all ages of 0.2-1.6%.

throwawaysea 7y ago

No, 2% is the case fatality rate. The true overall mortality is far lower. Germany did a randomized test recently of a town and calculated that 2% of the population is actively infected, 14% possess antibodies indicative of a current/prior infection, and overall 15% have been infected at some point. Once this broader testing was completed, the overal mortality was found to only be 0.37%. For comparison, a typical flu season is 0.1%. https://www.tagesschau.de/regional/nordrheinwestfalen/corona-studie-heinsberg-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/regional/nordrheinwestfalen/corona...

morsch 7y ago
For comparison, a typical flu season is 0.1%. That is incorrect. The worst flu wave to hit Germany in the last 20 years, 2017/2018, killed appoximately 25000 people (excess mortality). That's 0.03%, and it's not typical. Often, the number is much lower. Note also that the results from the Gangelt study you're referring to are preliminary; there's a press release but no paper yet, not even in preprint. https://edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/6253 https://edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/6253
- throwaway237683 7y ago
  > That's 0.03%, and it's not typical. Often, the number is much lower. 0.03% or 0.1% or 0.66%, the number is low enough to be perceived as not too dangerous by general populace. Contrast that with 13% mortality rate for Italy that was widely spun a month ago. Now _that_ was scary!