5 ms·

The numbers 70,000 to 116,000 are for the entire 1957-1958 pandemic, which of course is done. The number of over 150,000 for the current pandemic is only the de

by _qulr 6y ago

The numbers 70,000 to 116,000 are for the entire 1957-1958 pandemic, which of course is done. The number of over 150,000 for the current pandemic is only the deaths to date, which are at a rate of about 1500 per day now and rising. So I'm not clear on what your argument is supposed to be? We could split hairs over the numbers to date, but we know that the current pandemic is very far from over. Is there any serious dispute that when it's over, the current pandemic will surpass 1957-58, if it hasn't already? We don't have a vaccine, only a minority of the population has been infected, and it's still spreading. I was arguing for a hard lockdown to stop the current increase in cases. I'm not sure how it even matters whether the final toll in 1958 was 70K or 116K or somewhere between. We know the current cases have been trending upward for the past month in the US. Without a lockdown, they're likely to continue trending upward.

xyzzyz 6y ago
No, I agree that this one will be worse than the one in 1957, hence the use of “so far” in my original comment. However, I don’t think it will be very significantly, qualitatively worse than the one in 1957, at least from medical perspective. My point is that the current one is only really worse because of the response and perception. I think it is reasonable to say that if we followed Swedish approach to COVID, we’d have similar outcomes. The epidemics in Sweden is mostly finished, they get few new cases and very few new deaths. If we had similar fatality rate to Sweden, we’d be looking at 200,000 deaths in the US. That’s an enormous, dizzying numbers. However, it wouldn’t be qualitatively different than 1957 Asian flu, and given how nobody has even heard of 1957 Asian flu epidemics, I claim that we wouldn’t have done such an enormous damage to livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans. The cases in the US are going up, because this is how we go through with this whole ordeal. This is what happened in UK, Italy, Sweden, France, New York or New Jersey. They are now done with epidemics. Look at their graphs, despite relaxation of restrictions, case numbers are very low and flat or trending downwards. New York and New Jersey, with their absolutely disastrous policy of deliberately infecting nursing homes by forcing them to take COVID-positive patients, have most definitely resulted in very high death rates there compared to European countries. However, if instead of lockdowns, we pursued a sensible policy of protecting the most vulnerable, we’d be already done by now and could get on with our lives.
- _qulr 6y ago
  Ok, I see the problem here: > The epidemics in Sweden is mostly finished > This is what happened in UK, Italy, Sweden, France, New York or New Jersey. They are now done with epidemics. This is just way off base. "Five months into Europe's pandemic and only 6% of the population here is known to have antibodies, according to Swedish Public Health Agency research." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53498133 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53498133 The rate is difficult to measure, but even if it's significantly higher than 6%, it's nowhere near the estimated 70% required for herd immunity. Life has not returned to normal, anywhere. They're still social distancing in New York and New Jersey, and even in Sweden. Bringing the new cases under control is not the same as ending the pandemic. In the county I live in, we had new cases very much under control, but then the local governments bizarrely decided to reopen bars and sit-down restaurants, along with many other businesses, and predictably the cases almost immediately started spiking again. We're not done by a long shot. There's no quick fix.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    I think the estimated threshold of 70% is way too high. That estimate is based on models that were shown to be wrong by empirical data we just observed. I think the herd immunity threshold is rather around 20-30%. I think coming few months will prove me right: we will see more and more relaxation of lockdowns, without corresponding increase in cases, but only in places where the epidemics have already came on hard. Where it hasn’t been much of a thing, we will see many new cases and deaths, until those too will subside.

by _qulr 6y ago

xyzzyz 6y ago

No, I agree that this one will be worse than the one in 1957, hence the use of “so far” in my original comment. However, I don’t think it will be very significantly, qualitatively worse than the one in 1957, at least from medical perspective. My point is that the current one is only really worse because of the response and perception. I think it is reasonable to say that if we followed Swedish approach to COVID, we’d have similar outcomes. The epidemics in Sweden is mostly finished, they get few new cases and very few new deaths. If we had similar fatality rate to Sweden, we’d be looking at 200,000 deaths in the US. That’s an enormous, dizzying numbers. However, it wouldn’t be qualitatively different than 1957 Asian flu, and given how nobody has even heard of 1957 Asian flu epidemics, I claim that we wouldn’t have done such an enormous damage to livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans. The cases in the US are going up, because this is how we go through with this whole ordeal. This is what happened in UK, Italy, Sweden, France, New York or New Jersey. They are now done with epidemics. Look at their graphs, despite relaxation of restrictions, case numbers are very low and flat or trending downwards. New York and New Jersey, with their absolutely disastrous policy of deliberately infecting nursing homes by forcing them to take COVID-positive patients, have most definitely resulted in very high death rates there compared to European countries. However, if instead of lockdowns, we pursued a sensible policy of protecting the most vulnerable, we’d be already done by now and could get on with our lives.

_qulr 6y ago
Ok, I see the problem here: > The epidemics in Sweden is mostly finished > This is what happened in UK, Italy, Sweden, France, New York or New Jersey. They are now done with epidemics. This is just way off base. "Five months into Europe's pandemic and only 6% of the population here is known to have antibodies, according to Swedish Public Health Agency research." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53498133 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53498133 The rate is difficult to measure, but even if it's significantly higher than 6%, it's nowhere near the estimated 70% required for herd immunity. Life has not returned to normal, anywhere. They're still social distancing in New York and New Jersey, and even in Sweden. Bringing the new cases under control is not the same as ending the pandemic. In the county I live in, we had new cases very much under control, but then the local governments bizarrely decided to reopen bars and sit-down restaurants, along with many other businesses, and predictably the cases almost immediately started spiking again. We're not done by a long shot. There's no quick fix.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  I think the estimated threshold of 70% is way too high. That estimate is based on models that were shown to be wrong by empirical data we just observed. I think the herd immunity threshold is rather around 20-30%. I think coming few months will prove me right: we will see more and more relaxation of lockdowns, without corresponding increase in cases, but only in places where the epidemics have already came on hard. Where it hasn’t been much of a thing, we will see many new cases and deaths, until those too will subside.