8 ms·

Tl;dr: It looks like ~4.2% of Los Angeles residents may have already been affected. Current stats from [https://covid-19.direct/county/CA/Los%20Angeles https:/

Tl;dr: It looks like ~4.2% of Los Angeles residents may have already been affected. Current stats from [https://covid-19.direct/county/CA/Los%20Angeles https://covid-19.direct/county/CA/Los%20Angeles]: Confirmed cases: 12,349 Deaths: 601 Population: 4M Implied fatality rate: 4.87% If this study is correct (~4.2% prevalence): Cases: 167,580 Deaths: 601 Implied fatality rate: 0.36% There is massive difference between the appropriate response to an illness with a 5% fatality rate and an illness with a 0.36% fatality rate.

TheBlight 6y ago
I think your math is a bit off. From the paper 221,000 to 442,000 adults are believed to be infected. This makes the IFR ~0.13-0.27%. Source: http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328 http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/m...
babesh 6y ago
You need to factor in that some of the currently infected are going to die.
RobAtticus 6y ago
Certainly, but I don't think anyone was assuming 5% fatality rate. There were concerns about it being 1-3% fatality, but even those would be worst cases. Worth noting that .36 is roughly 3x as deadly as the flu.
- artursapek 6y ago
  3x as deadly as the flu, in a population of people who have already been exposed to the flu (and some even taking flu vaccines constantly). The evidence will continue to build that this virus is pretty benign compared to all of the fear mongering has been suggesting. Of course, HN downvoted me when I suggested this last time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22685457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22685457
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    I don't know how you can say that when hospitals have already hit the breaking point. It's not like our health care professionals have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Only a few hospitals in the very worst hotspots have hit the breaking point. I don't mean to say that we could have or should have done nothing, but the idea that there's been some widespread breakdown in medical care is just not accurate.
      - artursapek 6y ago
        That's not what you'd believe if you watched cable news ;)
      - jayd16 6y ago
        How can you interpret many countries across the globe facing hospital and ICU bed shortages and not call that widespread?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I'd definitely call it widespread. In many places across the world, hospitals faced bed and ICU shortages and had to go to heroic efforts to prevent them. But most of them were successful, remediating their shortages before anyone had to be denied care.
        jayd16 6y ago
        A shortage means a denial of care took place.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Sure, that's a reasonable definition, in which case it's untrue that more than a handful of places around the world have had a shortage.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Just listened to an interview [1] with a doctor that claimed we probably over-estimate the risk associated with the seasonal flu. [1]: https://reason.com/podcast/we-make-the-weather-why-voluntary-cooperation-is-key-to-battling-coronavirus/ https://reason.com/podcast/we-make-the-weather-why-voluntary...
tunesmith 6y ago
A lot of this is besides the point because what matters is hospitalization rate, and we've already reached the point where some hospital systems are stressed. Beyond that point, people die that otherwise wouldn't. So I'm not sure there's a big difference in appropriate response.
- orangecat 6y ago
  we've already reached the point where some hospital systems are stressed. Only NYC has gotten anywhere near their capacity, and even there (as far as I know) nobody has been denied care due to insufficient resources. Many hospitals in other areas are mostly empty and even cutting shifts, e.g. https://www.insidesources.com/unexpected-consequence-of-covid-19-crisis-empty-emergency-rooms/ https://www.insidesources.com/unexpected-consequence-of-covi...
ltbarcly3 6y ago
>> There is massive difference between the appropriate response to an illness with a 5% fatality rate and an illness with a 0.36% fatality rate. Is there? What is the appropriate response to 0.36%? The flu has a mortality rate of 0.1%, which seems comparable, except we all have some immunity from having the flu multiple times in the past. Flu shots are available for vulnerable people. So while people on average have a 1 in 1000 chance of dying if they get the flu, they also only have a 1/40 to a 1/7 chance of getting the flu at all. The probability of getting corona virus appears to be much, much higher for people exposed to it, and we have no idea what the rate of infection could get to if we let it run free and behaved normally.
gok 6y ago
Note that the death counts we're measuring correspond to what happens when there is sufficient treatment / health care capacity. We have to assume it would be higher if hospitals were overwhelmed and patients who needed ICU beds were not given it.
hilbertseries 6y ago
The study is for Los Angeles County, not LA, so the population is 10m.
genofon 6y ago
you don't take into consideration how contagious it is, it's not only important the percentage but the absolute number and also the time (due to resources constrains)
jayd16 6y ago
You'll want to keep in mind that the death rate spikes if the medical system is overwhelmed and there are medical shortages, which has not been the case in Los Angeles. There is plenty of examples globally and in NY that this virus is capable of overwhelming metropolitan areas.

TheBlight 6y ago

I think your math is a bit off. From the paper 221,000 to 442,000 adults are believed to be infected. This makes the IFR ~0.13-0.27%. Source: http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328 http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/m...

babesh 6y ago

You need to factor in that some of the currently infected are going to die.

RobAtticus 6y ago

Certainly, but I don't think anyone was assuming 5% fatality rate. There were concerns about it being 1-3% fatality, but even those would be worst cases. Worth noting that .36 is roughly 3x as deadly as the flu.

artursapek 6y ago
3x as deadly as the flu, in a population of people who have already been exposed to the flu (and some even taking flu vaccines constantly). The evidence will continue to build that this virus is pretty benign compared to all of the fear mongering has been suggesting. Of course, HN downvoted me when I suggested this last time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22685457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22685457
- tunesmith 6y ago
  I don't know how you can say that when hospitals have already hit the breaking point. It's not like our health care professionals have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Only a few hospitals in the very worst hotspots have hit the breaking point. I don't mean to say that we could have or should have done nothing, but the idea that there's been some widespread breakdown in medical care is just not accurate.
    - artursapek 6y ago
      That's not what you'd believe if you watched cable news ;)
    - jayd16 6y ago
      How can you interpret many countries across the globe facing hospital and ICU bed shortages and not call that widespread?
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I'd definitely call it widespread. In many places across the world, hospitals faced bed and ICU shortages and had to go to heroic efforts to prevent them. But most of them were successful, remediating their shortages before anyone had to be denied care.
        jayd16 6y ago
        A shortage means a denial of care took place.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Sure, that's a reasonable definition, in which case it's untrue that more than a handful of places around the world have had a shortage.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Just listened to an interview [1] with a doctor that claimed we probably over-estimate the risk associated with the seasonal flu. [1]: https://reason.com/podcast/we-make-the-weather-why-voluntary-cooperation-is-key-to-battling-coronavirus/ https://reason.com/podcast/we-make-the-weather-why-voluntary...

tunesmith 6y ago

A lot of this is besides the point because what matters is hospitalization rate, and we've already reached the point where some hospital systems are stressed. Beyond that point, people die that otherwise wouldn't. So I'm not sure there's a big difference in appropriate response.

orangecat 6y ago
we've already reached the point where some hospital systems are stressed. Only NYC has gotten anywhere near their capacity, and even there (as far as I know) nobody has been denied care due to insufficient resources. Many hospitals in other areas are mostly empty and even cutting shifts, e.g. https://www.insidesources.com/unexpected-consequence-of-covid-19-crisis-empty-emergency-rooms/ https://www.insidesources.com/unexpected-consequence-of-covi...

ltbarcly3 6y ago

>> There is massive difference between the appropriate response to an illness with a 5% fatality rate and an illness with a 0.36% fatality rate. Is there? What is the appropriate response to 0.36%? The flu has a mortality rate of 0.1%, which seems comparable, except we all have some immunity from having the flu multiple times in the past. Flu shots are available for vulnerable people. So while people on average have a 1 in 1000 chance of dying if they get the flu, they also only have a 1/40 to a 1/7 chance of getting the flu at all. The probability of getting corona virus appears to be much, much higher for people exposed to it, and we have no idea what the rate of infection could get to if we let it run free and behaved normally.

gok 6y ago

Note that the death counts we're measuring correspond to what happens when there is sufficient treatment / health care capacity. We have to assume it would be higher if hospitals were overwhelmed and patients who needed ICU beds were not given it.

hilbertseries 6y ago

The study is for Los Angeles County, not LA, so the population is 10m.

genofon 6y ago

you don't take into consideration how contagious it is, it's not only important the percentage but the absolute number and also the time (due to resources constrains)

jayd16 6y ago

You'll want to keep in mind that the death rate spikes if the medical system is overwhelmed and there are medical shortages, which has not been the case in Los Angeles. There is plenty of examples globally and in NY that this virus is capable of overwhelming metropolitan areas.