4 ms·
> Anecdote: I work a lot with low income people and the vast majority want to be considered essential with the ability to earn. This is because they, like most
by arkades 6y ago
> Anecdote: I work a lot with low income people and the vast majority want to be considered essential with the ability to earn. This is because they, like most people, are smart and are able to understand the risk and make decisions for themselves and their families.
Absolute bullshit.
We don't know the true prevalence. We don't know the true incidence rate. Without that, we don't know the true mortality.
Epidemiologists and infectious disease docs can't give you a reasonable "understand(ing of) the risk ... for themselves and their families" right now, only the general bounds of best- and worst-case scenarios.
Anyone else claiming to have that knowledge or understanding is deluding themselves and/or others. To point to people desperate to not end up homeless/jobless and say they're making a rational decision with understanding of risks involved is absolutely ludicrous.
- DuskStar 6y agoI'm pretty sure the worst-case scenario for a healthy person under 30 is around 0.1% IFR. Other estimates are better than that.
- rootusrootus 6y agoI would wager that under 30 it's probably a good bit lower than 0.1% IFR. This is the problem with trying to come up with an overall IFR for the disease. It makes a certain sense at a macro level, but for assessing your own exposure it doesn't mean a lot. People under 30 have a really low risk, people over 70 should probably weld their doors shut.
- DuskStar 6y agoOh, certainly! I meant that the worst case under-30 IFR - the one corresponding with something like 5% overall IFR - is around 0.1%. Something like 0.01% is easily within the bounds of possibility from what I understand. (For reference, the death rate for SCUBA divers is ~16/100,000/year - or 0.016%/year. Yes, SCUBA is risky, but it certainly puts things in perspective)
- rootusrootus 6y agoI think we'd all benefit from an effort to put perspective on the risk of this disease. E.g. if everyone knew that the one-time risk from COVID is approximately equal to their annual risk of all-cause death, it would be easier to reason about.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe general bound of worst-case scenarios is about equal to all-cause mortality risk over a year. That's bad, but not apocalyptically bad - well within the range of risks that an individual could rationally decide to accept.
- DuskStar 6y agoEven more so if you're in a low-risk demographic - for instance, "healthy person under 50".
- s1artibartfast 6y ago>Absolute bullshit. A child can make a first order estimation of personal risk. For example, I live in California and there are 2000 cases a day for 4 million people. I think I am safer than the average person, so my risk is less than that. It isn't perfect or numerically accurate, but gives a ballpark result which can be used.
- sjg007 6y agoYou are safe until you are not. That's how the exponential works.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoTrue, but growth is not exponential in the US and has been flat since the start of April. If growth increases, you know it is becoming more dangerous. If growth decreases, you know it is becoming less dangerous.
- sjg007 6y agoGrowth is still exponential in many places in the USA. What you are witnessing is Simpon's paradox. Basically factor out NYC and a few others and you see the exponential. Also all it takes is letting off the brake and where growth is flat will accelerate again. Also what we want is a 14 day decline in new cases. Then we should consider re-opening. People refused to social distance and ruined it for everyone.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoYou don’t see exponential for any of the top 10 states. What does a 14 day decline mean for a state that never had a significant outbreak. I have seen zero evidence that there is a meaningful spoiler effect. If you have any data, I would be very interested.
- sjg007 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]