3 ms·
I think initial concerns were the mortality rate would be much, much higher without the sometimes draconian shelter in place measures. It may be lower now becau
by ericmay 7y ago
I think initial concerns were the mortality rate would be much, much higher without the sometimes draconian shelter in place measures. It may be lower now because we are able to devote more intense resources (ventilators) to those who are sick. Burry seems to overlook that without implementing social distancing policies we may have had a huge surge in sick people all at once, which would have left many without access to potentially life saving equipment. Cases where a ventilator or other resources save someone and lower the overall mortality rate would have resulted in more deaths because you’ve simply got far too many sick people.
With that being said, I’m sympathetic toward the concerns about the economic cost, and think that we need to really focus on a reopen plan in May or June. Workers who can WFH should probably continue to do so, but if we’ve been able to flatten the curve it’s probably time to go back outside and see what happens.
I’ll also say with respect to Burry that although he is a trained physician, it doesn’t make him an expert in epidemiology, so, frankly, I don’t really care for his opinion on the subject any more than anyone else who is moderately educated.
- cm2187 7y agoI agree directionally, but the numbers matter as well. Depending on what study we look at, the survival rate of covid19 patients that require a ventilator is anywhere between 0% and 50%. For the sake of argument let’s assume the other patients can be treated in field hospitals that scale reasonably well, it means running out of ventilators would “only” double the mortality rate. But double a rate that is <0.5% may still be <0.5%.
- travisoneill1 7y agoOnly 1/3 of people with COVID who require ventilation survive, so lack of ventilators will raise mortality, but only by 50%.
- DanBC 7y agoVentilators are also used by people who don't have covid-19, so lack of access to ICU is going to affect more than just covid-19 patients.
- cm2187 7y agoFine. Assume all ventilators used for non covid19 patients. The maths stay the same.
- DanBC 7y agoYou haven't counted length of stay before death or transfer to a different ward (covid-19 patients stay in ICU longer before they die or recover), nor iatrogenic harm caused by non-intensivist doctors and nurses suddenly being pulled into ICU work.
- amalter 7y agoAdditionally, COVID-19 is a new disease and we have no data about the long term effects. This is true anecdotal, but I’m following a cohort of 5 MD friends who all experienced “walking COVID” (aka reached the loss of smell symptom, but required no hospitalization). This cohort is 35-45 and all previously highly athletic. They are between +20 and +45 days from being “symptom free”. Not one of them can perform cardiac challenged activities. I’ve heard things like “I get winded carrying groceries up the stairs” to “I cannot perform even a single push-up”. So before we take this big risk of letting the virus “burn” through the population, shouldn’t we understand just a bit more? Sure, maybe we’ll get lucky and the IFR will just be 2-10x flu. But there are worrying signs of permanent heart, lung and kidney damage. These costs will also stay with us long term. Mortality isn’t the concern when dealing with an unknown virus.
- gremlinsinc 7y agoI wonder how this plays out with the NBA, since Rudy Gobert and many other players have tested positive and experienced those same kind of symptoms.