3 ms·
No analogy is perfect, but people need context to understand fatality rates, and see what risk is acceptable. Society doesn't have a goal of 0% death rates. We
by marcell 6y ago
No analogy is perfect, but people need context to understand fatality rates, and see what risk is acceptable. Society doesn't have a goal of 0% death rates. We all accept some risk of death as a cost of continued existence.
New data is showing that the fatality rate from covid-19 is more like existing risk we were all previously exposed to in the course of our existence, and not like a second version of smallpox.
- johnnyo 6y agoAs you said, you gotta die of something. If the covid rate equals the regular rate, then the US death rate would effectively double if we simply did nothing. That’s assuming no second order effects like a shortage of medical care making things worse.
- beagle3 6y ago> If the covid rate equals the regular rate, then the US death rate would effectively double if we simply did nothing. For one year (or however long it takes to reach herd immunity -- and if longer, then death rates wouldn't double but increase much less). Assuming recovery confers significantly long lasting immunity, which I agree is not a trivial assumption (and one we don't know yet how reasonable). Definitely not trivial, but -- in context -- means a reduction of life expectancy by less than one year. The US already lags Japan by 6; there's a lot that can be done to improve it by a year, with costs much lower than those currently spent to avoid reducing it by a year.
- scott_s 6y agoCorrect, Covid-19 is not as bad as smallpox. But it's still bad. Focusing on fatality rates misses the infection rate. Two diseases with the same case fatality rate can kill widely different number of people if one is more infectious than the other. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 is way more infectious than the flu, meaning that way more people are getting it. With way more cases, we have way more deaths. (And, of course, way more strain on the medical system.)
- dekhn 6y agoThis more or less sums up my position. Thank you for stating it. I think the news media played a big role in amplifying the risk in a very uncertain early period that made people treat this differently from other risks that affect us and many of the arguments right now are happening because some poeple believe the goal of society is to reach 0% death rates. An important thing to recognize is that the disease itself is not an existential threat (even smallpox wasn't; even the plague wasn't!), but our response to it skirts creating one.
- evross 6y agoThe graphs on this page shows the situation for NY. It is clear that the risk can't be compared with 2009's H1N1. It's sobering. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/corona... We need to give the scientists and medical professionals and industry more time to figure out how best to prevent this. There are many reports of 40-50 day illnesses in young people due to not clearing the virus. And the poorly named 'mild' case can be rough. It's (badly imo) defined as when a patient doesn't require hospital. It should be called moderate I think. [1] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/what-coronavirus-mild-symptoms-are-fever-2020-3?op=1&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/what-coronavirus-mild-sympto...