7 ms·

That is one of the stupidest graphics I have ever seen in an academic journal article.

henriquez 6y ago
> For society to resume, measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented This is an opinion piece disguised as science. It’s presumptuous of a science writer to make determinations about whether and how society will be permitted to resume. If we want people to be perfectly safe we’d also ban fast food, meat, alcohol, nicotine, driving and sex. But the goal of society is not to keep people 100% safe. Why are we okay with having our liberties trampled over an illness that the CDC estimates has a 0.26% death rate?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  This entire thing has showed what happens when political leaders don't properly evaluate risk. It's difficult to do so when something new comes along. I think Wendover did a great job of address this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtX-Ibi21tU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtX-Ibi21tU
- sacred_numbers 6y ago
  Because the death rate is way higher than 0.26%. If the CDC really thinks it's that low for the general population then they are wrong. The general consensus I have seen, based on antibody tests in New York, Italy, Sweden, and Spain point to a death rate between 0.75% and 1.25% for most developed nations. For less developed nations (which, to be fair, is most of the world) the death rate will be lower because there are fewer old people. I agree that we don't have to shut down everything, but everyone should be wearing masks as much as possible in public. Public smoking is highly restricted, at least partially because of the risks of secondhand smoke, and the risks of COVID-19 are way higher than that. People can do what they want at home, but we have to share public spaces. It's not right for someone else to make decisions that endanger me and my family just because they don't care about the risk.
  - marcell 6y ago
    The CDC latest best estimate is 0.4% death rate from Covid. This compares to a death rate from the flu of around 0.2%, also based on CDC estimates [1]. Every death is a tragedy, but we didn't do half-lockdowns for the flu before. Why are we doing a full lockdown for something that is 2x the flu. Antibody testing largely supports a 0.4% death rates conclusion, I've tracked this data in a spreadsheet I made [2]. 0.4% is close to the mean and median of the studies I recorded. Edit: I know it's gauche to complain about downvotes, but this post is just citing data to make a point. Even if you are worried about Covid, it seems dishonest to downvote data. [1] https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cd... [2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTlad1jnQZ9W7p_P_yS-0D6j1-8/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTla...
    - ido 6y ago
      I genuinely mean this with no disrespect but how knowledgeable are you about this & if you aren't why do you think some data collecting from the internet & "back of the envelope" spreadsheet-ing makes you able to reasonably question world experts that dedicated their careers to virology and pandemics? If you are a programmer how much would you appreciate a medical doctor with no training or experience in software development questioning your technical decisions about what to use when building a software service?
      - marcell 6y ago
        The 0.4% fatality estimate is from the CDC, presumably full of credentialed experts. My spreadsheet is a collection of studies from experts who have presumably dedicated their careers to virology and pandemics. The 0.2% number is also from the CDC. I’m not out there doing science, I’m just looking at the data. I’m not sure what the basis is if your criticism. If a medical doctor wants to submit a PR I would review it based on merits.
        6y ago

> For society to resume, measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented This is an opinion piece disguised as science. It’s presumptuous of a science writer to make determinations about whether and how society will be permitted to resume. If we want people to be perfectly safe we’d also ban fast food, meat, alcohol, nicotine, driving and sex. But the goal of society is not to keep people 100% safe. Why are we okay with having our liberties trampled over an illness that the CDC estimates has a 0.26% death rate?

djsumdog 6y ago
This entire thing has showed what happens when political leaders don't properly evaluate risk. It's difficult to do so when something new comes along. I think Wendover did a great job of address this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtX-Ibi21tU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtX-Ibi21tU
sacred_numbers 6y ago
Because the death rate is way higher than 0.26%. If the CDC really thinks it's that low for the general population then they are wrong. The general consensus I have seen, based on antibody tests in New York, Italy, Sweden, and Spain point to a death rate between 0.75% and 1.25% for most developed nations. For less developed nations (which, to be fair, is most of the world) the death rate will be lower because there are fewer old people. I agree that we don't have to shut down everything, but everyone should be wearing masks as much as possible in public. Public smoking is highly restricted, at least partially because of the risks of secondhand smoke, and the risks of COVID-19 are way higher than that. People can do what they want at home, but we have to share public spaces. It's not right for someone else to make decisions that endanger me and my family just because they don't care about the risk.
- marcell 6y ago
  The CDC latest best estimate is 0.4% death rate from Covid. This compares to a death rate from the flu of around 0.2%, also based on CDC estimates [1]. Every death is a tragedy, but we didn't do half-lockdowns for the flu before. Why are we doing a full lockdown for something that is 2x the flu. Antibody testing largely supports a 0.4% death rates conclusion, I've tracked this data in a spreadsheet I made [2]. 0.4% is close to the mean and median of the studies I recorded. Edit: I know it's gauche to complain about downvotes, but this post is just citing data to make a point. Even if you are worried about Covid, it seems dishonest to downvote data. [1] https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cd... [2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTlad1jnQZ9W7p_P_yS-0D6j1-8/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTla...
  - ido 6y ago
    I genuinely mean this with no disrespect but how knowledgeable are you about this & if you aren't why do you think some data collecting from the internet & "back of the envelope" spreadsheet-ing makes you able to reasonably question world experts that dedicated their careers to virology and pandemics? If you are a programmer how much would you appreciate a medical doctor with no training or experience in software development questioning your technical decisions about what to use when building a software service?
    - marcell 6y ago
      The 0.4% fatality estimate is from the CDC, presumably full of credentialed experts. My spreadsheet is a collection of studies from experts who have presumably dedicated their careers to virology and pandemics. The 0.2% number is also from the CDC. I’m not out there doing science, I’m just looking at the data. I’m not sure what the basis is if your criticism. If a medical doctor wants to submit a PR I would review it based on merits.
      - 6y ago