5 ms·

If this cuts deaths by 1/3rd, isn't that totally sufficient to end all lockdowns and border restrictions immediately? The death rate looks basically like the an

If this cuts deaths by 1/3rd, isn't that totally sufficient to end all lockdowns and border restrictions immediately? The death rate looks basically like the annual flu with this drug, particularly when we consider that it will just be one bad season then fairly minor from then on, when much of the population gets natural immunity.

mrlala 6y ago
It's baffling that you are comparing the death rate that happened DURING A LONG LOCKDOWN with a non-lockdown annual flu death rate.. and acting like if we can drop the numbers a bit it's the same thing. Your logic is essentially saying the lockdown did nothing to reduce deaths/infection.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  They are talking about the death rate, not the absolute number of deaths.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    I mean, that would still be wrong. IFR for flu is about 0.1% in a normal year. Most reputable estimates for the IFR for COVID are about 1%.
    - ReticentVole 6y ago
      CDC estimated it at 0.26%: https://in.dental-tribune.com/news/new-estimate-by-the-cdc-brings-down-the-covid-19-death-rate-to-just-0-26-as-against-whos-3-4/ https://in.dental-tribune.com/news/new-estimate-by-the-cdc-b...
      - rsynnott 6y ago
        That estimate wasn't particularly well-received, and the facts on the ground make it look especially dubious. NYC has has 17k deaths, for instance, mostly in April and early May. If you assume that _everyone_ in NYC has been infected, that would be an IFR of 0.2%. An antibody survey in late April found a prevalence of about 25% in New York City, which, assuming it's accurate (huge assumption, obviously) would indicate a rate of about 0.8%.
        guscost 6y ago
        > That estimate wasn't particularly well-received Of course not, any estimate of this number is going to be controversial because it implies that someone messed up. The "reception" from one side in an ongoing debate means precisely nothing to me. > An antibody survey in late April found a prevalence of about 25% in New York City, which, assuming it's accurate (huge assumption, obviously) Yes, fairly big assumption. I wonder if the seropositive numbers have changed since then? > NYC has... NYC has/had a lot of uncommon things that you don't mention: - Filthy subway system with horrible ventilation that is used by almost everyone many times a week. - Large proportion of residents living in apartment buildings with shared HVAC. - Public health protocols which were extremely quick to hospitalize and then intubate patients (even those without positive PCR tests). - A directive from the state government which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients.
SrslyJosh 6y ago
> If this cuts deaths by 1/3rd That's not what the article says: > It cut the risk of death by a third for patients on ventilators. For those on oxygen, it cut deaths by a fifth. That's the optimistic way of phrasing it. Let's look at the reality. From the article: > For patients on ventilators, it cut the risk of death from 40% to 28%. > For patients needing oxygen, it cut the risk of death from 25% to 20% 28% of patients on vents (1 in 4!) still died. 20% of patients on oxygen (1 in 5!) still died. Another thing: this is not going to help anyone who isn't in the hospital. You could still drop dead of a heart attack or stroke while at home with a "mild" case of the virus. It could happen even if you're asymptomatic. And the people who the drug does help are still at risk for significant, possibly lifelong complications. > The death rate looks basically like the annual flu with this drug No, it doesn't. > particularly when we consider that it will just be one bad season then fairly minor from then on "One bad season" will be 1-2 million dead from the virus here in America, plus more people who die as the healthcare is overwhelmed and ceases to function. Please stop pretending this isn't a serious disease.
thehappypm 6y ago
1/3 isn’t good enough, sadly. Essentially, dex is usable for treating the sickest of the sick patients — those who are closest to becoming the unlucky 1% who die. If every patient who reaches that stage received it, we could potentially see the death rate drop, maybe to around .6%. Still higher than the flu by a lot. And, if every hospital is overrun with runaway infections, not everyone could even get their dex.

mrlala 6y ago

It's baffling that you are comparing the death rate that happened DURING A LONG LOCKDOWN with a non-lockdown annual flu death rate.. and acting like if we can drop the numbers a bit it's the same thing. Your logic is essentially saying the lockdown did nothing to reduce deaths/infection.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
They are talking about the death rate, not the absolute number of deaths.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  I mean, that would still be wrong. IFR for flu is about 0.1% in a normal year. Most reputable estimates for the IFR for COVID are about 1%.
  - ReticentVole 6y ago
    CDC estimated it at 0.26%: https://in.dental-tribune.com/news/new-estimate-by-the-cdc-brings-down-the-covid-19-death-rate-to-just-0-26-as-against-whos-3-4/ https://in.dental-tribune.com/news/new-estimate-by-the-cdc-b...
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      That estimate wasn't particularly well-received, and the facts on the ground make it look especially dubious. NYC has has 17k deaths, for instance, mostly in April and early May. If you assume that _everyone_ in NYC has been infected, that would be an IFR of 0.2%. An antibody survey in late April found a prevalence of about 25% in New York City, which, assuming it's accurate (huge assumption, obviously) would indicate a rate of about 0.8%.
      - guscost 6y ago
        > That estimate wasn't particularly well-received Of course not, any estimate of this number is going to be controversial because it implies that someone messed up. The "reception" from one side in an ongoing debate means precisely nothing to me. > An antibody survey in late April found a prevalence of about 25% in New York City, which, assuming it's accurate (huge assumption, obviously) Yes, fairly big assumption. I wonder if the seropositive numbers have changed since then? > NYC has... NYC has/had a lot of uncommon things that you don't mention: - Filthy subway system with horrible ventilation that is used by almost everyone many times a week. - Large proportion of residents living in apartment buildings with shared HVAC. - Public health protocols which were extremely quick to hospitalize and then intubate patients (even those without positive PCR tests). - A directive from the state government which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients.

SrslyJosh 6y ago

> If this cuts deaths by 1/3rd That's not what the article says: > It cut the risk of death by a third for patients on ventilators. For those on oxygen, it cut deaths by a fifth. That's the optimistic way of phrasing it. Let's look at the reality. From the article: > For patients on ventilators, it cut the risk of death from 40% to 28%. > For patients needing oxygen, it cut the risk of death from 25% to 20% 28% of patients on vents (1 in 4!) still died. 20% of patients on oxygen (1 in 5!) still died. Another thing: this is not going to help anyone who isn't in the hospital. You could still drop dead of a heart attack or stroke while at home with a "mild" case of the virus. It could happen even if you're asymptomatic. And the people who the drug does help are still at risk for significant, possibly lifelong complications. > The death rate looks basically like the annual flu with this drug No, it doesn't. > particularly when we consider that it will just be one bad season then fairly minor from then on "One bad season" will be 1-2 million dead from the virus here in America, plus more people who die as the healthcare is overwhelmed and ceases to function. Please stop pretending this isn't a serious disease.

thehappypm 6y ago

1/3 isn’t good enough, sadly. Essentially, dex is usable for treating the sickest of the sick patients — those who are closest to becoming the unlucky 1% who die. If every patient who reaches that stage received it, we could potentially see the death rate drop, maybe to around .6%. Still higher than the flu by a lot. And, if every hospital is overrun with runaway infections, not everyone could even get their dex.