6 ms·

A study was just released by Stanford University with the objective of estimating the infection fatality rate of COVID-19. The results are as follows: "In peopl

A study was just released by Stanford University with the objective of estimating the infection fatality rate of COVID-19. The results are as follows: "In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%."[0] Is it right to shut down the entire economy with these statistics or are people overreacting? High risk individuals do have the option to get food delivered to their home, if they're afraid of contracting the virus. Shouldn't they also be able to make that decision for themselves, if they're OK with taking that risk or not? On the other hand, we don't want hospitals filling up past their limits and putting tremendous strain on health care workers. It's definitely a tricky situation. [0]: https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gexla 6y ago
> On the other hand, we don't want hospitals filling up past their limits and putting tremendous strain on health care workers. This seems like it's the only thing which matters. Having a working health care system is one of the pillars of modern society?
- serjester 6y ago
  On one extreme, I'm sure most people would agree it's not worth spending millions of dollars to add months to the lives of geriatric patients. How much collateral damage are we willing to endure to add another 9 to the probability a senior citizen doesn't die from the pandemic? It's a balancing act. I don't pretend to know the answer, but in general I am opposed to another shutdown given how much we've progressed in handling this disease. On a side note, I'm not a fan of how the 15% rule makes it seem like we're on the brink of being overrun - you have to keep in mind 60 to 80% of hospital beds are occupied by non-covid patients.
pmoriarty 6y ago
The IFR would be worse if medical care wasn't available because of hospitals being over-capacity and health care workers burning out (or dying themselves). Fatalities from other causes would increase too (as they're already doing due to people avoiding medical care due to fear of infection at hospitals). The absolute number of dead would also rise were the lockdowns not in place. Just how many people do we want to sacrifice to keep restaurants open? Also, fatalities aren't the only thing we have to worry about. People who survive can have very serious complications. Finally, why should we only look at the effects on people younger than 70?
- indecisive_user 6y ago
  >People who survive can have very serious complications. This is true of several respiratory illnesses. For example there's evidence that the flu can increase the chance of a cardiovascular event for several months after recovery[0]. Is there evidence that covid has more severe long term complications than other respiratory illnesses? >why should we only look at the effects on people younger than 70? We shouldn't, of course. However we also shouldn't base policy off of a minority of the high risk population. Older people are also at a much higher risk of auto accidents. Instead of making the license process more difficult for everyone, several states have rules specifically for older people mandating more frequent vision tests and license renewals. Instead of banning a low risk activity for a mostly low risk group, why don't we put resources into taking care of the high risk population(free grocery/medicine delivery, prioritized telehealth appointments, etc.) and let everyone else take care of their own risk assessment? [0]https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/29/1/96/2398118 https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/29/1/96/2398118
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    Just a couple of days ago "the U.S. recorded over 3,100 COVID-19 deaths in a single day"[1] I have a very hard time imagining that restaurant closings or any other lockdown measures are ever going to lead to this scale of death. [1] - https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/12/03/more-than-2800-americans-reported-dead-with-covid-19-on-wednesday-in-worst-day-of-the-pandemic/ https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/12/03/more-than-2800-a...
superkuh 6y ago
If you look at the plots of the data sources from the meta-survey of literature that is [0] you'll notice the IFR positively correlated with high population and infrastructure. These places get a better idea of the actual IFR and are diluted out by places that falsify data (China) and aren't capable of taking real population level data (smaller and undeveloped countries). The first part of the paper is justifying this choice as to not dilute out the measurements from the small regions. I guess if you hang a lampshade on it like that it almost makes sense this paper was approved. But it's easily misinterpreted.
beaunative 6y ago
Actions could have been taken, and the cost of those actions could be much lower. It's because we keep comparing those numbers that we forget what really matters. The only reason economy matter is because people matter. Even if those restaurants would be having a difficult time, or even close their businesses. I don't think those people work there would just die. Unlike those "high-risk individuals" you just so causality decide don't matter. It is ridiculous.
nostrademons 6y ago
Humans are really bad at judging risk. Here's a sample of your odds of dying from a variety of causes as a 15-45 year old, sourced from the CDC [1][2] and your paper, and assuming there are about 45 million Americans in the 15-45 year old age range: Drug overdose: 1 in 1000 COVID: 1 in 2000 Suicide: 1 in 2000 Car accident: 1 in 2500 [any gun-related death]: 1 in 2500 Homicide: 1 in 3000 The flu: 1 in 20,000 Struck by lighting: 1 in a million Terrorism: 1 in ~100 million [3] (COVID and influenza are infection fatality rates, the rest are rates among the general population. If you live in a wealthy neighborhood and don't have guns in the house your risks from suicide, homicide, and terrorism are basically nil, while if you're in West Baltimore they're much worse.) You be the judge from that. Personally I consider COVID worrisome enough to take sensible precautions and endure some inconveniences, but not the end of the world (well, personally. It may be the end of many societies, possibly even including the U.S). The #1 health risk that people seem to undervalue is "Don't do drugs", and the #1 most overvalued is the "War on Terrorism". It's interesting how many infringements of our civil liberties and economic life we put up with in the name of curbing terrorism, when median number of terrorist deaths in the U.S. per year is 4, and COVID is 50,000 times more likely to kill us. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2017-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_dea... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_2017-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_inj... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#U.S._totals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...
bryanlarsen 6y ago
1. Isolating just those above 70 is both cruel and impossible. The old and vulnerable need significant amounts of care. 2. 0.05% of hundreds of millions is still a lot of people. (And the number is far higher than that because it's impossible to isolate the >70) 3. the entire economy isn't shut down, far from it. At this point, it's on the order of a 5% hit. The pain is unevenly spread. A competent government would spread the burden. 4. If you were immuno-compromised, would you want your food delivered by the people traveling through multiple busy dining rooms? 5. Vaccines are just weeks away for the vulnerable, and mass vaccination a few months. The virus is spreading quickly, so just a little bit more isolation for a little bit longer will save hundreds of thousands of lives. Saving hundreds of thousands of lives might not be worth it if we had to shut down for years, but if shutting down for a couple months can save that many, it seems much more reasonable. 6. Your 0.05% figure assumes that hospitals and staff aren't overwhelmed. The figure increases dramatically when they are.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gexla 6y ago

> On the other hand, we don't want hospitals filling up past their limits and putting tremendous strain on health care workers. This seems like it's the only thing which matters. Having a working health care system is one of the pillars of modern society?

serjester 6y ago
On one extreme, I'm sure most people would agree it's not worth spending millions of dollars to add months to the lives of geriatric patients. How much collateral damage are we willing to endure to add another 9 to the probability a senior citizen doesn't die from the pandemic? It's a balancing act. I don't pretend to know the answer, but in general I am opposed to another shutdown given how much we've progressed in handling this disease. On a side note, I'm not a fan of how the 15% rule makes it seem like we're on the brink of being overrun - you have to keep in mind 60 to 80% of hospital beds are occupied by non-covid patients.

pmoriarty 6y ago

The IFR would be worse if medical care wasn't available because of hospitals being over-capacity and health care workers burning out (or dying themselves). Fatalities from other causes would increase too (as they're already doing due to people avoiding medical care due to fear of infection at hospitals). The absolute number of dead would also rise were the lockdowns not in place. Just how many people do we want to sacrifice to keep restaurants open? Also, fatalities aren't the only thing we have to worry about. People who survive can have very serious complications. Finally, why should we only look at the effects on people younger than 70?

indecisive_user 6y ago
>People who survive can have very serious complications. This is true of several respiratory illnesses. For example there's evidence that the flu can increase the chance of a cardiovascular event for several months after recovery[0]. Is there evidence that covid has more severe long term complications than other respiratory illnesses? >why should we only look at the effects on people younger than 70? We shouldn't, of course. However we also shouldn't base policy off of a minority of the high risk population. Older people are also at a much higher risk of auto accidents. Instead of making the license process more difficult for everyone, several states have rules specifically for older people mandating more frequent vision tests and license renewals. Instead of banning a low risk activity for a mostly low risk group, why don't we put resources into taking care of the high risk population(free grocery/medicine delivery, prioritized telehealth appointments, etc.) and let everyone else take care of their own risk assessment? [0]https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/29/1/96/2398118 https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/29/1/96/2398118
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  Just a couple of days ago "the U.S. recorded over 3,100 COVID-19 deaths in a single day"[1] I have a very hard time imagining that restaurant closings or any other lockdown measures are ever going to lead to this scale of death. [1] - https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/12/03/more-than-2800-americans-reported-dead-with-covid-19-on-wednesday-in-worst-day-of-the-pandemic/ https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/12/03/more-than-2800-a...

superkuh 6y ago

If you look at the plots of the data sources from the meta-survey of literature that is [0] you'll notice the IFR positively correlated with high population and infrastructure. These places get a better idea of the actual IFR and are diluted out by places that falsify data (China) and aren't capable of taking real population level data (smaller and undeveloped countries). The first part of the paper is justifying this choice as to not dilute out the measurements from the small regions. I guess if you hang a lampshade on it like that it almost makes sense this paper was approved. But it's easily misinterpreted.

beaunative 6y ago

Actions could have been taken, and the cost of those actions could be much lower. It's because we keep comparing those numbers that we forget what really matters. The only reason economy matter is because people matter. Even if those restaurants would be having a difficult time, or even close their businesses. I don't think those people work there would just die. Unlike those "high-risk individuals" you just so causality decide don't matter. It is ridiculous.

nostrademons 6y ago

Humans are really bad at judging risk. Here's a sample of your odds of dying from a variety of causes as a 15-45 year old, sourced from the CDC [1][2] and your paper, and assuming there are about 45 million Americans in the 15-45 year old age range: Drug overdose: 1 in 1000 COVID: 1 in 2000 Suicide: 1 in 2000 Car accident: 1 in 2500 [any gun-related death]: 1 in 2500 Homicide: 1 in 3000 The flu: 1 in 20,000 Struck by lighting: 1 in a million Terrorism: 1 in ~100 million [3] (COVID and influenza are infection fatality rates, the rest are rates among the general population. If you live in a wealthy neighborhood and don't have guns in the house your risks from suicide, homicide, and terrorism are basically nil, while if you're in West Baltimore they're much worse.) You be the judge from that. Personally I consider COVID worrisome enough to take sensible precautions and endure some inconveniences, but not the end of the world (well, personally. It may be the end of many societies, possibly even including the U.S). The #1 health risk that people seem to undervalue is "Don't do drugs", and the #1 most overvalued is the "War on Terrorism". It's interesting how many infringements of our civil liberties and economic life we put up with in the name of curbing terrorism, when median number of terrorist deaths in the U.S. per year is 4, and COVID is 50,000 times more likely to kill us. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2017-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_dea... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_2017-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_inj... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#U.S._totals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...

bryanlarsen 6y ago

1. Isolating just those above 70 is both cruel and impossible. The old and vulnerable need significant amounts of care. 2. 0.05% of hundreds of millions is still a lot of people. (And the number is far higher than that because it's impossible to isolate the >70) 3. the entire economy isn't shut down, far from it. At this point, it's on the order of a 5% hit. The pain is unevenly spread. A competent government would spread the burden. 4. If you were immuno-compromised, would you want your food delivered by the people traveling through multiple busy dining rooms? 5. Vaccines are just weeks away for the vulnerable, and mass vaccination a few months. The virus is spreading quickly, so just a little bit more isolation for a little bit longer will save hundreds of thousands of lives. Saving hundreds of thousands of lives might not be worth it if we had to shut down for years, but if shutting down for a couple months can save that many, it seems much more reasonable. 6. Your 0.05% figure assumes that hospitals and staff aren't overwhelmed. The figure increases dramatically when they are.