5 ms·

> there’s good evidence that this is a substantial undercount. I don’t know about the US, but most European countries count anyone who died with corona as a co

> there’s good evidence that this is a substantial undercount. I don’t know about the US, but most European countries count anyone who died with corona as a covid death. No matter how clearly you died to something else.

watwut 6y ago
The overall flu mortality estimation counts people we guess might have flu, but never seeked doctor. As deaths, they estimate how may other deaths are fly and add them (like % of pneumonia). There is also fuzziness about who counts as death from flu too. For covid, there is no added estimation afaik, if you die without test you dont count. It is not like one number was super clean and other dirty. Both are dirty and estimations.
nickthemagicman 6y ago
If only people with symptoms are being tested, and 80% of people are asymptomatic, how are we not drastically overestimating fatality rate?
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  Where do you see the data that 80% of people are asymptomatic? You complain elsewhere in this thread of being dismissed even when you have data, yet provide none. We understand that you think that the lockdowns are bunk and that this is a big non-issue cooked up by the world to ruin our lives; sure, maybe, but where is the data?
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Here is a medical journal sufficient? This is more study than was given to full lockdowns. This was posted to Hacker News a few weeks ago as well. https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-2020-215091.full https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-20... "We understand that you think that the lockdowns are bunk " Correction...lockdowns ARE bunk. WHERES THE SECOND WAVE? Why hasn't Sweden followed the model of exponential explosion that was used to justify the lockdowns. The flat curver movement was unscientific and wrong and you would do well to fight unscientific attacks on your civil freedoms with all of your vigour going forward because this isn't the last time this will be attempted.
    - wbronitsky 6y ago
      Thank you for posting the data. These are both brand new from yesterday, however, so I’m not sure why the tone here is so belligerent. Either way, this is incredibly interesting, and something we should continue to look into going forward. It sure would be nice to ease up on the lockdowns if they are not the correct path going forward.
      - nickthemagicman 6y ago
        If you do some research and start questioning the narrative the amount of demonization and arrogant dismissiveness you get for it will make you belligerent. lol People are scared and when you disagree with the experts even if you're right you get treated poorly.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Additionally, the only closed system study we've had of this, is a cruise ship. And this was replicated there. 80% asymptomatics. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/27/over-80percent-of-coronavirus-patients-on-cruise-ship-had-no-symptoms-study-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/27/over-80percent-of-coronaviru...
samsari 6y ago
While that may be true, most European countries still undercount the true death rates since there are large discrepancies between each country's official covid deaths and excess deaths.
- natrik 6y ago
  Playing devil's advocate, how are we sure excess deaths are due to covid and not the lockdowns instead? (Suicides, cancelled surgeries, etc.)
  - pinkfoot 6y ago
    Ok, playing systems-engineer here: we'd call those secondary COVID-19 deaths caused by the either de facto or de jure lock-downs. Why, oh why, are some people so obsessed with lowering the number of COVID-19 related deaths at every possible opportunity? Its weird.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Why, oh why, are some people so obsessed with lowering the number of COVID-19 related deaths at every possible opportunity? Its weird. Maybe they want to minimize the amount of secondary COVID-19 deaths?
      - pinkfoot 6y ago
        Fair enough, but WHY? Here is a less contentious example: 1. consider a severe, long drought 2. this will damage the livelihoods of many in the hinterland - farmers and those in the small town that service them 3. many may be driven to suicide. Would you not agree that such excess suicides are 'caused by the drought'?
        luckylion 6y ago
        Yes, but it's not quite the same, because the suicides etc for COVID-19 are not directly caused by the virus, but by our reaction to it, and some believe it's an over-reaction. I'm not an expert on the actual, real dangers, e.g. how many and who will die, so that's not what I'm concerned with. If they're terribly high, doing what ever is necessary to stop it is right, I consider that obvious. "Flattening the curve" makes generally sense to me, in a "let's make sure our hospital system doesn't collapse" kind of way. I live in a county of a bit over 300.000 people in Germany. We have 10 known active cases in the county. We're still in a very constrained soft-lock-down, i.e. schools not running normally, half the offices not open, mandatory masks, public services on emergency-only-level etc. We're still taking damage economically, obviously. Lots of people are scared to death in a very real way, and are still afraid to leave their houses. Is it still the right call to remain in this state today? Will it be when we have 0 active cases, but there are counties nearby that still have more than 0? By saying "well, everything that happens happens because of COVID-19", we're removing our agency from the equation.

watwut 6y ago

The overall flu mortality estimation counts people we guess might have flu, but never seeked doctor. As deaths, they estimate how may other deaths are fly and add them (like % of pneumonia). There is also fuzziness about who counts as death from flu too. For covid, there is no added estimation afaik, if you die without test you dont count. It is not like one number was super clean and other dirty. Both are dirty and estimations.

nickthemagicman 6y ago

If only people with symptoms are being tested, and 80% of people are asymptomatic, how are we not drastically overestimating fatality rate?

wbronitsky 6y ago
Where do you see the data that 80% of people are asymptomatic? You complain elsewhere in this thread of being dismissed even when you have data, yet provide none. We understand that you think that the lockdowns are bunk and that this is a big non-issue cooked up by the world to ruin our lives; sure, maybe, but where is the data?
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Here is a medical journal sufficient? This is more study than was given to full lockdowns. This was posted to Hacker News a few weeks ago as well. https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-2020-215091.full https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-20... "We understand that you think that the lockdowns are bunk " Correction...lockdowns ARE bunk. WHERES THE SECOND WAVE? Why hasn't Sweden followed the model of exponential explosion that was used to justify the lockdowns. The flat curver movement was unscientific and wrong and you would do well to fight unscientific attacks on your civil freedoms with all of your vigour going forward because this isn't the last time this will be attempted.
  - wbronitsky 6y ago
    Thank you for posting the data. These are both brand new from yesterday, however, so I’m not sure why the tone here is so belligerent. Either way, this is incredibly interesting, and something we should continue to look into going forward. It sure would be nice to ease up on the lockdowns if they are not the correct path going forward.
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      If you do some research and start questioning the narrative the amount of demonization and arrogant dismissiveness you get for it will make you belligerent. lol People are scared and when you disagree with the experts even if you're right you get treated poorly.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Additionally, the only closed system study we've had of this, is a cruise ship. And this was replicated there. 80% asymptomatics. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/27/over-80percent-of-coronavirus-patients-on-cruise-ship-had-no-symptoms-study-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/27/over-80percent-of-coronaviru...

samsari 6y ago

While that may be true, most European countries still undercount the true death rates since there are large discrepancies between each country's official covid deaths and excess deaths.

natrik 6y ago
Playing devil's advocate, how are we sure excess deaths are due to covid and not the lockdowns instead? (Suicides, cancelled surgeries, etc.)
- pinkfoot 6y ago
  Ok, playing systems-engineer here: we'd call those secondary COVID-19 deaths caused by the either de facto or de jure lock-downs. Why, oh why, are some people so obsessed with lowering the number of COVID-19 related deaths at every possible opportunity? Its weird.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Why, oh why, are some people so obsessed with lowering the number of COVID-19 related deaths at every possible opportunity? Its weird. Maybe they want to minimize the amount of secondary COVID-19 deaths?
    - pinkfoot 6y ago
      Fair enough, but WHY? Here is a less contentious example: 1. consider a severe, long drought 2. this will damage the livelihoods of many in the hinterland - farmers and those in the small town that service them 3. many may be driven to suicide. Would you not agree that such excess suicides are 'caused by the drought'?
      - luckylion 6y ago
        Yes, but it's not quite the same, because the suicides etc for COVID-19 are not directly caused by the virus, but by our reaction to it, and some believe it's an over-reaction. I'm not an expert on the actual, real dangers, e.g. how many and who will die, so that's not what I'm concerned with. If they're terribly high, doing what ever is necessary to stop it is right, I consider that obvious. "Flattening the curve" makes generally sense to me, in a "let's make sure our hospital system doesn't collapse" kind of way. I live in a county of a bit over 300.000 people in Germany. We have 10 known active cases in the county. We're still in a very constrained soft-lock-down, i.e. schools not running normally, half the offices not open, mandatory masks, public services on emergency-only-level etc. We're still taking damage economically, obviously. Lots of people are scared to death in a very real way, and are still afraid to leave their houses. Is it still the right call to remain in this state today? Will it be when we have 0 active cases, but there are counties nearby that still have more than 0? By saying "well, everything that happens happens because of COVID-19", we're removing our agency from the equation.