3 ms·

It's also lower than the 3% that was predicted that people used to justify the shutdown and closer inline with the swine flu or rotovirus.

empath75 7y ago
Nobody ever seriously suggested it was 3%. The estimates were always around 1%
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-r... I mean there were articles like this all of march. I'm not saying the WHO or CDC might of said something different but lets acknowledge there were articles proclaiming a 3% death rate.
- grandmczeb 7y ago
  Lots of people were seriously suggesting >3%. Edit: Removed the term revisionism since I wasn't aware of the historical connotation.
rallison 7y ago
An IFR of 0.6%, with 2/3 of the US infected (about what you'd need for herd immunity at an R0 of 3), means ~1.3 million deaths. That's well in line with the models. The distinction between CFR and IFR was not news to the experts.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Regardless of initial estimates, how is 0.6% - 1% "closer inline" to 0.026%[1]? Even based upon the low range that's 30X more fatal. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8406723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8406723.stm
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  zso your saying its closer inline with the seasonal flu. With a 0.1% death rate. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-deadly-is-the-coronavirus-compared-to-past-outbreaks#Novel-coronavirus-(COVID-19) https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-deadly-is-the-cor... The point still stands is that enough to warrant the current strategy compared with countries like Korean or TW.
gdulli 7y ago
The shutdown addresses more qualitative aspects of the situation. Even if flattening the curve doesn't reduce the area under the curve, it still avoids a potential large numbers of otherwise avoidable deaths because fewer people have it at once, keeping hospitals under capacity, and more people will get it later when we know better how to treat it. And the earliest predictions have to be the least accurate, because they're based on the least amount of data. But early on is when you need to act.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> It's also lower than the 3% that was predicted that people used to justify the shutdown and closer inline with the swine flu or rotovirus. The shutdown wasn't, and isn't, based on the fatality rate under current conditions as much as the shape of the curve of various medical resources being required (total hospital beds, ICU beds, ventilators, PPE for healthcare workers, etc.), the anticipated speed of being able to bring more online, and the likely impact of exceeding available supply on death rates and other health outcomes, both for COVID-19 victims and patients with other health conditions. (A potential problem which was significantly realized in Italy, where things like ventilators were for a while allocated based on other factors besides medical need, since the number with need exceeded the supply.) It's important to remember that the fatality rate of a disease isn't a constant, and changes to conditions (like, we can no longer provide ventilators to everyone who needs one) can change that rate.
greedo 7y ago
You're conflating CFR with IFR.

empath75 7y ago

Nobody ever seriously suggested it was 3%. The estimates were always around 1%

DeonPenny 7y ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-r... I mean there were articles like this all of march. I'm not saying the WHO or CDC might of said something different but lets acknowledge there were articles proclaiming a 3% death rate.
grandmczeb 7y ago
Lots of people were seriously suggesting >3%. Edit: Removed the term revisionism since I wasn't aware of the historical connotation.

rallison 7y ago

An IFR of 0.6%, with 2/3 of the US infected (about what you'd need for herd immunity at an R0 of 3), means ~1.3 million deaths. That's well in line with the models. The distinction between CFR and IFR was not news to the experts.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

Regardless of initial estimates, how is 0.6% - 1% "closer inline" to 0.026%[1]? Even based upon the low range that's 30X more fatal. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8406723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8406723.stm

DeonPenny 7y ago
zso your saying its closer inline with the seasonal flu. With a 0.1% death rate. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-deadly-is-the-coronavirus-compared-to-past-outbreaks#Novel-coronavirus-(COVID-19) https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-deadly-is-the-cor... The point still stands is that enough to warrant the current strategy compared with countries like Korean or TW.

gdulli 7y ago

The shutdown addresses more qualitative aspects of the situation. Even if flattening the curve doesn't reduce the area under the curve, it still avoids a potential large numbers of otherwise avoidable deaths because fewer people have it at once, keeping hospitals under capacity, and more people will get it later when we know better how to treat it. And the earliest predictions have to be the least accurate, because they're based on the least amount of data. But early on is when you need to act.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> It's also lower than the 3% that was predicted that people used to justify the shutdown and closer inline with the swine flu or rotovirus. The shutdown wasn't, and isn't, based on the fatality rate under current conditions as much as the shape of the curve of various medical resources being required (total hospital beds, ICU beds, ventilators, PPE for healthcare workers, etc.), the anticipated speed of being able to bring more online, and the likely impact of exceeding available supply on death rates and other health outcomes, both for COVID-19 victims and patients with other health conditions. (A potential problem which was significantly realized in Italy, where things like ventilators were for a while allocated based on other factors besides medical need, since the number with need exceeded the supply.) It's important to remember that the fatality rate of a disease isn't a constant, and changes to conditions (like, we can no longer provide ventilators to everyone who needs one) can change that rate.

greedo 7y ago

You're conflating CFR with IFR.