3 ms·

The CDC best estimate is that US has 20M+ covid cases right now ( https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-says-covid-19-cases-in-us-may-be-10-times-high

by trhway 6y ago

The CDC best estimate is that US has 20M+ covid cases right now ( https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-says-covid-19-cases-in-us-may-be-10-times-higher-than-reported/2315636/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-says-covid-1...) . That number has beem reached with all the masks wearing and lockdowns. So, what is the difference between the expectations in case of mask wearing vs. not wearing by the end of the year? Even with masks wearing and lockdowns we're probably talking about high tens of millions or even 100M for US. Can it be higher without masks and lockdowns? Spanish flu infected just under one third of total population. For covid, New York had probably reached about 2M cases (~20% of population) and the infection rate went down after that. Using that model of 20% (and NY has much higher population density) it means 70M infections for the whole US. Given how we've already reached 20M+, i think that number will be reached no matter what in a few months (give or take a bit depending on masks, lockdowns, etc.), well before wide availability of vaccine. So, it is really not about whether masks work, it is about whether it makes any noticeable difference in the current situation. I personally was for total population mask wearing, temp checking, etc. back then in Dec/Jan/Feb because back then we had a chance to stop the spread. These days i just don't see any arithmetically consistent way to avoid the described above scenario and stop the current flooding/tsunami.

mennis16 6y ago
The places surging right now in the US are all places where mask wearing was a controversy and many people did not wear masks. So I don't think it is fair to say that the case numbers are "with mask policy".
adjkant 6y ago
You assume here that NYC's numbers went down via some property of the disease, not a lockdown being observed by the whole city along with high mask usage. Letting this "run its course" would spike NYC and the whole US far above 70M cases. We would easily be looking at 500,000 dead at least even with how we've learned to decrease the death rate. That death rate would also go up as we stop flattening the curve, as we saw happen quickly with Texas. NYC has had decreasing numbers despite large outdoor protests, which had high mask usage. In a week or two there will be some numbers on how Phase II reopening is going in an area with high mask usage as well which should be another good data point. Here are some actual interesting scenario tools for controlling the virus even as it runs its course: https://ncase.me/covid-19/ https://ncase.me/covid-19/ As a note, a big factor here is that it appears that antibodies may only last for 2-3 months which breaks some of those recovery models. If that is true, without any mitigation and even with most at-risk people dying off earlier, we could still end up losing .1% - 1% of the population every 3 months until we have a treatment or vaccine. I don't like how those numbers look even if we manage to get a vaccine in 12 months.
- trhway 6y ago
  >some property of the disease it seems that only some share of people is susceptible to a given virus like covid, flu, etc. (for whatever reason, like some genetic characteristic or for example presence of antibodies from some other virus which happen to help here). Say for example half of the population, 50 out of 100. So once 20 people got it, there are 30 left to be infected while all the others - 70 - can't participate in the infection spread, and 70% is pretty close to herd immunity. Add to that the estimates that herd immunity for covid can be even less than half https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-07-02/could-threshold-for-covid-19-herd-immunity-be-lower-than-thought https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-07-02/... - that would explain the infection rate drop in NYC.
  - adjkant 6y ago
    > Say for example half of the population, 50 out of 100. I think you're confusing susceptible and immune. If the antibody numbers are legit, then the asymptomatic rate is around 90%, but that's not the full story. You have to remember that asymptomatic people still spread the virus, so this plays differently in herd immunity modeling. You're still looking at a 1% average death rate in NYC too given those numbers. That 50% of people you mentioned is not about symptomatic - they must also not be able to transmit. Otherwise using a SIR model or similar there's still 80% of the population that can catch and infect others. I have seen nothing about such natural immunity in people even in small numbers, let alone at 50% of the population. That assumption is doing a lot of legwork in your herd immunity claim. At best, your assumptions still means we need to accept just under a million deaths. At worst, even with no increased death rate due to hospital load, that's closer to 3 million. When other countries have shown clear alternatives by taking measures that don't lead to 1% of their population dying (such as Germany at 0.01% so far), one of which is mask usage, I don't see how there's harm in the policy when it could mean literally saving millions of lives. All of that relies on antibodies lasting, which doesn't seem to be guaranteed[1], as I pointed out in my post before. That can make this much worse if/when people begin to catch it again. [1]https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/chinese-study-antibodies-covid-19-patients-fade-quickly https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/chinese-...

by trhway 6y ago

mennis16 6y ago

The places surging right now in the US are all places where mask wearing was a controversy and many people did not wear masks. So I don't think it is fair to say that the case numbers are "with mask policy".

adjkant 6y ago

You assume here that NYC's numbers went down via some property of the disease, not a lockdown being observed by the whole city along with high mask usage. Letting this "run its course" would spike NYC and the whole US far above 70M cases. We would easily be looking at 500,000 dead at least even with how we've learned to decrease the death rate. That death rate would also go up as we stop flattening the curve, as we saw happen quickly with Texas. NYC has had decreasing numbers despite large outdoor protests, which had high mask usage. In a week or two there will be some numbers on how Phase II reopening is going in an area with high mask usage as well which should be another good data point. Here are some actual interesting scenario tools for controlling the virus even as it runs its course: https://ncase.me/covid-19/ https://ncase.me/covid-19/ As a note, a big factor here is that it appears that antibodies may only last for 2-3 months which breaks some of those recovery models. If that is true, without any mitigation and even with most at-risk people dying off earlier, we could still end up losing .1% - 1% of the population every 3 months until we have a treatment or vaccine. I don't like how those numbers look even if we manage to get a vaccine in 12 months.

trhway 6y ago
>some property of the disease it seems that only some share of people is susceptible to a given virus like covid, flu, etc. (for whatever reason, like some genetic characteristic or for example presence of antibodies from some other virus which happen to help here). Say for example half of the population, 50 out of 100. So once 20 people got it, there are 30 left to be infected while all the others - 70 - can't participate in the infection spread, and 70% is pretty close to herd immunity. Add to that the estimates that herd immunity for covid can be even less than half https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-07-02/could-threshold-for-covid-19-herd-immunity-be-lower-than-thought https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-07-02/... - that would explain the infection rate drop in NYC.
- adjkant 6y ago
  > Say for example half of the population, 50 out of 100. I think you're confusing susceptible and immune. If the antibody numbers are legit, then the asymptomatic rate is around 90%, but that's not the full story. You have to remember that asymptomatic people still spread the virus, so this plays differently in herd immunity modeling. You're still looking at a 1% average death rate in NYC too given those numbers. That 50% of people you mentioned is not about symptomatic - they must also not be able to transmit. Otherwise using a SIR model or similar there's still 80% of the population that can catch and infect others. I have seen nothing about such natural immunity in people even in small numbers, let alone at 50% of the population. That assumption is doing a lot of legwork in your herd immunity claim. At best, your assumptions still means we need to accept just under a million deaths. At worst, even with no increased death rate due to hospital load, that's closer to 3 million. When other countries have shown clear alternatives by taking measures that don't lead to 1% of their population dying (such as Germany at 0.01% so far), one of which is mask usage, I don't see how there's harm in the policy when it could mean literally saving millions of lives. All of that relies on antibodies lasting, which doesn't seem to be guaranteed[1], as I pointed out in my post before. That can make this much worse if/when people begin to catch it again. [1]https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/chinese-study-antibodies-covid-19-patients-fade-quickly https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/chinese-...