3 ms·

Because we didn't know just how many people were asymptomatic when the lockdowns first began. The virus is still far worse than the flu but not nearly as bad a

Because we didn't know just how many people were asymptomatic when the lockdowns first began. The virus is still far worse than the flu but not nearly as bad as initially feared. At this point I think reasonable people can disagree on the right approach moving forward. Unfortunately once you scare everyone into locking down you can't reverse course on a dime.

toshk 6y ago
I hear this sentiment often lately. But it always looked like 0.6-1 percent deathrate. Already in february this was suggested by one of the researchers at Hopkins, based on the nrs of South Korea at the time. And it's still around that percentage with the latest studies in Europe. Even though it sounds low, that's still a lot of deaths if left uncontrolled.
- nradov 6y ago
  The latest data indicates an infection fatality rate of about 0.3%. https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Los-Angeles-antibody-study-coronavirus-mortality-15283660.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Los-Angeles...
  - toshk 6y ago
    Latest study in Spain around 1-1.3. 70,000 participants. https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study... Most studies in Europe show this: 0,5 - 1.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    NYC and Stockholm antibody tests would indicate an IFR more like 1% or a little over. Though I'd be cautious about being too confident in antibody study results, for now. A lot can depend on test accuracy (especially where covid is rare anyway).
  - radioactivist 6y ago
    That study (and the related Santa Clara study by a subset of the same authors) were torn apart by statisticians for the shoddy methodology and irresponsible selling of its results to the media.
cma 6y ago
UK's model used .9%>. WHO never said >3% IFR, they only said that was the amount of deaths out of current known cases. This was their criticized quote: > Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died It was true.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

toshk 6y ago

I hear this sentiment often lately. But it always looked like 0.6-1 percent deathrate. Already in february this was suggested by one of the researchers at Hopkins, based on the nrs of South Korea at the time. And it's still around that percentage with the latest studies in Europe. Even though it sounds low, that's still a lot of deaths if left uncontrolled.

nradov 6y ago
The latest data indicates an infection fatality rate of about 0.3%. https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Los-Angeles-antibody-study-coronavirus-mortality-15283660.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Los-Angeles...
- toshk 6y ago
  Latest study in Spain around 1-1.3. 70,000 participants. https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study... Most studies in Europe show this: 0,5 - 1.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  NYC and Stockholm antibody tests would indicate an IFR more like 1% or a little over. Though I'd be cautious about being too confident in antibody study results, for now. A lot can depend on test accuracy (especially where covid is rare anyway).
- radioactivist 6y ago
  That study (and the related Santa Clara study by a subset of the same authors) were torn apart by statisticians for the shoddy methodology and irresponsible selling of its results to the media.

cma 6y ago

UK's model used .9%>. WHO never said >3% IFR, they only said that was the amount of deaths out of current known cases. This was their criticized quote: > Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died It was true.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]