3 ms·

One implication is that COVID-19 might not be "just the flu". It might actually end up being far less damaging than the flu, as viewed over decades. And we do

One implication is that COVID-19 might not be "just the flu". It might actually end up being far less damaging than the flu, as viewed over decades. And we don't trash our economy and the lives of the working class that depend on it due to flu deaths, even though they are still quite dramatic. Personally, I'm conservative on this, and have barely left my place in the last eight weeks. I can work from home and will suffer little even if the lockdown is quite lengthy. But not everyone is in such a fortunate position, and I think we need to consider what's happening very carefully.

travisporter 7y ago
Honestly, I see the worry that we are overreacting. But you are way more likely to end up in the hospital with covid with rates of around 10-15%. Super broad strokes, if you get the flu every year and are at least 20 years old, what is the probability you would have be hospitalized if covid=flu? I think we are considering things carefully. I can’t remember the last time you saw both dem and rep governors agree on anything, yet they are all agreeing on stay at home orders and testing.
- etimberg 7y ago
  Until there are large scale accurate antibody tests, it will be hard to say if the hospitalization rate for covid is that high or not.
watwut 7y ago
By "viewed over decades" we count in period when vaccine is supposed to exist, when we have cheaper tests and know to put on masks when something happens and when majority of population has antibodies. Even the most pessimistic estimates expect the issue to be dealt with in decades. Also, the thing to consider is that working class is whonis most at risk from this. Rich people have less comorbidities, can afford healthcare and are much more easily to work from home and buy via deliveries. This is basically reason why African Americans die the most - working class can't isolate themselves so easily. They are the group to die more then same age non working class.
mgsouth 7y ago
New York state has had 1 person in 1,200 [0] die from COVID-19, and is on track for 1 in 1,000. Do you know 1,000 people? If you lived in NYC, how many of your acquaintances would have died? How many people you know die from the flu every year? Not even the most extreme estimates I've seen suggest that NY has anything approaching 50% immunity. Reopening NY and letting people catch CV19 would double, triple, ? the death rate. There is no suggestion that NY is special as regards total numbers. (Velocity, due to population density, assume yes.) This is not the flu. [0] A of 2020-04-17 880 deaths per 1M population. http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/
- bequanna 7y ago
  NYC is absolutely not representative of the rest of the country. In fact, they appear to be the hardest hit locale in the world in no small part due to their poor and delayed response. I agree, reopening NYC would be a mistake, but large portions of the US (especially rural areas) remain largely unaffected by this. The average age of death in my state (MN) is 88 with preexisting conditions. Our death rate is 0.0019% (!) with a flattened curve for some time now. Most of the US is not NYC.
  - mgsouth 7y ago
    The point being, an unusually large percentage of the people who contract CV19 die. Lower density == longer time to hit X% infected and Y% dead, but you'll still get there. (With caveats that X is a bit lower with lockdown, and Y gets higher when medical system is overloaded.) Minnesota death rate is, as you say, currently at 19/million, but is growing at about 10%/day. The curve fits WA state's; continuing along that curve, WA currently has 79/million and is growing by 3%/day.
    - downerending 7y ago
      The question is not "How many will die?". Sadly, many will. The question is "How much net difference will different reopening schedules make?". The answer to that is unclear, but remaining in lockdown for six months could easily kill more people (net).

travisporter 7y ago

Honestly, I see the worry that we are overreacting. But you are way more likely to end up in the hospital with covid with rates of around 10-15%. Super broad strokes, if you get the flu every year and are at least 20 years old, what is the probability you would have be hospitalized if covid=flu? I think we are considering things carefully. I can’t remember the last time you saw both dem and rep governors agree on anything, yet they are all agreeing on stay at home orders and testing.

etimberg 7y ago
Until there are large scale accurate antibody tests, it will be hard to say if the hospitalization rate for covid is that high or not.

watwut 7y ago

By "viewed over decades" we count in period when vaccine is supposed to exist, when we have cheaper tests and know to put on masks when something happens and when majority of population has antibodies. Even the most pessimistic estimates expect the issue to be dealt with in decades. Also, the thing to consider is that working class is whonis most at risk from this. Rich people have less comorbidities, can afford healthcare and are much more easily to work from home and buy via deliveries. This is basically reason why African Americans die the most - working class can't isolate themselves so easily. They are the group to die more then same age non working class.

mgsouth 7y ago

New York state has had 1 person in 1,200 [0] die from COVID-19, and is on track for 1 in 1,000. Do you know 1,000 people? If you lived in NYC, how many of your acquaintances would have died? How many people you know die from the flu every year? Not even the most extreme estimates I've seen suggest that NY has anything approaching 50% immunity. Reopening NY and letting people catch CV19 would double, triple, ? the death rate. There is no suggestion that NY is special as regards total numbers. (Velocity, due to population density, assume yes.) This is not the flu. [0] A of 2020-04-17 880 deaths per 1M population. http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/

bequanna 7y ago
NYC is absolutely not representative of the rest of the country. In fact, they appear to be the hardest hit locale in the world in no small part due to their poor and delayed response. I agree, reopening NYC would be a mistake, but large portions of the US (especially rural areas) remain largely unaffected by this. The average age of death in my state (MN) is 88 with preexisting conditions. Our death rate is 0.0019% (!) with a flattened curve for some time now. Most of the US is not NYC.
- mgsouth 7y ago
  The point being, an unusually large percentage of the people who contract CV19 die. Lower density == longer time to hit X% infected and Y% dead, but you'll still get there. (With caveats that X is a bit lower with lockdown, and Y gets higher when medical system is overloaded.) Minnesota death rate is, as you say, currently at 19/million, but is growing at about 10%/day. The curve fits WA state's; continuing along that curve, WA currently has 79/million and is growing by 3%/day.
  - downerending 7y ago
    The question is not "How many will die?". Sadly, many will. The question is "How much net difference will different reopening schedules make?". The answer to that is unclear, but remaining in lockdown for six months could easily kill more people (net).