5 ms·

Are you predicting 500-900k deaths in the USA due to COVID-19?

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Not a domain expert, so I make no predictions myself but do consume data from subject matter experts on the topic. Healthy middle aged person who wears a mask in public but goes about his life with his family as if nothing happened. Haven’t gotten COVID, but if I do, I’ll take sick days and move on. What else would you expect people to do, hide inside forever? Curve was flattened, there’s no appetite to do so further if necessary, life goes on (or it doesn’t).
- criddell 6y ago
  You don't think we would be better off if we had been as aggressive as countries like South Korea?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I think we would, but we won’t, so that’s what folks will optimize for (“open for business”). Can’t fault people for responding to incentives and policy accordingly.
    - criddell 6y ago
      It's hard for me to reconcile that you educate yourself by reading what experts are saying and you still are going about your life as if nothing had happened. Are the policies and incentives so powerful that it's overriding your knowledge that you and your neighbors would be better off if you continued to self-quarantine as much as possible?
      - amluto 6y ago
        Will we be better off if we self-quarantine as long as possible? Under the assumption that a fixed percentage of Americans will get COVID-19 in the long run and that treatments will not improve, then self-quarantining may delay getting it and has some chance of pushing those who self-quarantine more effectively into the not-getting it category but will make little difference to the overall mortality rate. So, for increased isolation to make a big difference, something has to break one of those assumptions. Possibilities include: A vaccine. This may well happen in under a year. How much of a difference this makes will depend on the efficacy of a vaccine and how many people get it. Improved treatments. Some experts seem optimistic about monoclonal antibodies. Cost, production, and ability to administer early enough in the course of the disease are still unknown. Living in a country that is actually suppressing the disease. Countries that have competently managed COVID-19 are not on a course that will eventually infect a large fraction of the population. It seems likely that if all countries were this competent, then COVID-19 could be eradicated without a vaccine.
        mnm1 6y ago
        Your assumptions about treatment not improving have already been proven wrong by dexamethasone: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01824-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01824-5
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        What do you believe to be a reasonable duration of time to aggressively quarantine if health services aren’t overloaded?
        criddell 6y ago
        I defer to experts. I would assume that once Rt is well below 1 and an aggressive testing apparatus is in place it would be safe to cautiously resume public life.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Yes. I do not agree that me and my neighbors would be better off if we hid inside until 2021; I think the kind of trauma that creates would be more damaging than the worst-case projections for the virus.
      - matz1 6y ago
        I too go about my life as nothing had happened. Simple reason: many people who get it are asymptomatic, many who get it only have mild symptoms, yes few unlucky people will be dead but the number are exceddingly low. Not worth it to be worrying about it.
        jhayward 6y ago
        This is such a repugnant and ignorant statement that it makes me despair for our society.
        matz1 6y ago
        repugnant is very subjective but ignorant ? Can u point out which part of my statement that is ignorant ?
        jhayward 6y ago
        One only needs to look at Italy, Spain, NYC to spot the main problem(s) with the statement. I'm being generous in attributing them to ignorance - there is a very strong likelihood in today's environment that it's willful mis-statement. Not the least problem is that it implicitly assumes that others will take steps to reduce the worst effects, so that you don't need to bother. The basic anti-social anti-vax position. In any case it's so easily dissected that I'm going to invoke Brandolini's Law [1] and decline to waste the time to refute BS. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
        matz1 6y ago
        >One only needs to look at Italy, Spain, NYC to spot the main problem(s) with the statement Many are asymptotic, many have mild symptom, yes there is deaths but low in number. Is it not the same case as in Italy, Spain, NYC ? >Not the least problem is that it implicitly assumes that others will take steps to reduce the worst effects, so that you don't need to bother I don't assumes others will take steps to reduce the worst effects. Even in in the worst case situation where everyone eventually will get infected (including me), it didn't bother me.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I think that a significant part of what people see as an aggressive response is read backwards on the countries that happen to have had good results. There are a lot of countries and regions who were praised for their aggressive response in March and April, who've now been memory-holed as their pandemic ramps up. It's fair to say the US made missteps that South Korea didn't, but the idea that there's some universally correct response which can be imposed from the top by fiat seems incompatible with the facts on the ground.

Not a domain expert, so I make no predictions myself but do consume data from subject matter experts on the topic. Healthy middle aged person who wears a mask in public but goes about his life with his family as if nothing happened. Haven’t gotten COVID, but if I do, I’ll take sick days and move on. What else would you expect people to do, hide inside forever? Curve was flattened, there’s no appetite to do so further if necessary, life goes on (or it doesn’t).

criddell 6y ago
You don't think we would be better off if we had been as aggressive as countries like South Korea?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I think we would, but we won’t, so that’s what folks will optimize for (“open for business”). Can’t fault people for responding to incentives and policy accordingly.
  - criddell 6y ago
    It's hard for me to reconcile that you educate yourself by reading what experts are saying and you still are going about your life as if nothing had happened. Are the policies and incentives so powerful that it's overriding your knowledge that you and your neighbors would be better off if you continued to self-quarantine as much as possible?
    - amluto 6y ago
      Will we be better off if we self-quarantine as long as possible? Under the assumption that a fixed percentage of Americans will get COVID-19 in the long run and that treatments will not improve, then self-quarantining may delay getting it and has some chance of pushing those who self-quarantine more effectively into the not-getting it category but will make little difference to the overall mortality rate. So, for increased isolation to make a big difference, something has to break one of those assumptions. Possibilities include: A vaccine. This may well happen in under a year. How much of a difference this makes will depend on the efficacy of a vaccine and how many people get it. Improved treatments. Some experts seem optimistic about monoclonal antibodies. Cost, production, and ability to administer early enough in the course of the disease are still unknown. Living in a country that is actually suppressing the disease. Countries that have competently managed COVID-19 are not on a course that will eventually infect a large fraction of the population. It seems likely that if all countries were this competent, then COVID-19 could be eradicated without a vaccine.
      - mnm1 6y ago
        Your assumptions about treatment not improving have already been proven wrong by dexamethasone: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01824-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01824-5
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      What do you believe to be a reasonable duration of time to aggressively quarantine if health services aren’t overloaded?
      - criddell 6y ago
        I defer to experts. I would assume that once Rt is well below 1 and an aggressive testing apparatus is in place it would be safe to cautiously resume public life.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Yes. I do not agree that me and my neighbors would be better off if we hid inside until 2021; I think the kind of trauma that creates would be more damaging than the worst-case projections for the virus.
    - matz1 6y ago
      I too go about my life as nothing had happened. Simple reason: many people who get it are asymptomatic, many who get it only have mild symptoms, yes few unlucky people will be dead but the number are exceddingly low. Not worth it to be worrying about it.
      - jhayward 6y ago
        This is such a repugnant and ignorant statement that it makes me despair for our society.
        matz1 6y ago
        repugnant is very subjective but ignorant ? Can u point out which part of my statement that is ignorant ?
        jhayward 6y ago
        One only needs to look at Italy, Spain, NYC to spot the main problem(s) with the statement. I'm being generous in attributing them to ignorance - there is a very strong likelihood in today's environment that it's willful mis-statement. Not the least problem is that it implicitly assumes that others will take steps to reduce the worst effects, so that you don't need to bother. The basic anti-social anti-vax position. In any case it's so easily dissected that I'm going to invoke Brandolini's Law [1] and decline to waste the time to refute BS. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
        matz1 6y ago
        >One only needs to look at Italy, Spain, NYC to spot the main problem(s) with the statement Many are asymptotic, many have mild symptom, yes there is deaths but low in number. Is it not the same case as in Italy, Spain, NYC ? >Not the least problem is that it implicitly assumes that others will take steps to reduce the worst effects, so that you don't need to bother I don't assumes others will take steps to reduce the worst effects. Even in in the worst case situation where everyone eventually will get infected (including me), it didn't bother me.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I think that a significant part of what people see as an aggressive response is read backwards on the countries that happen to have had good results. There are a lot of countries and regions who were praised for their aggressive response in March and April, who've now been memory-holed as their pandemic ramps up. It's fair to say the US made missteps that South Korea didn't, but the idea that there's some universally correct response which can be imposed from the top by fiat seems incompatible with the facts on the ground.