5 ms·

You could also make the argument that letting the initial variant of the virus run its course may have been wiser than society wide mandates that prolonged it.

You could also make the argument that letting the initial variant of the virus run its course may have been wiser than society wide mandates that prolonged it. Given the low infection fatality rate, if everyone under 50 in the US caught it, we would have around 30,000 deaths (or same order of magnitude if my estimate is off) because the IFR for those under 50 is so incredibly low. Then the rest of society would be well protected as well and we would have a high natural immunity against new variants that developed. If enacted worldwide, perhaps the reduced transmission may have avoided the delta surge altogether. Note that the CDC’s projections show that a higher natural immunity would mean reducing cases for delta even with limited masking. Also the first SARS was far less transmissible. Generally speaking as viruses mutate, they tradeoff R0 and severity. It is unlikely the first SARS would have evolved a variant that was more transmissible and equally fatal. EDIT: Note that even though increased transmissions can mean more mutations leading to dangerous variants anyways, if the alpha variant were spreading broadly before something like delta was broadly spreading, then the delta variant would contend with a higher natural immunity in the global population, which would make it difficult for delta to take hold in the same way. The CDC’s own presentations show that even a limited increased natural immunity of 35% would mean that delta cases would reduce without new masking mandates or restrictions.

epistasis 5y ago
> if everyone under 50 in the US caught it, we would have around 30,000 deaths. Personally, I value the lives of people over 50 just as much as those under 50. A lot of important people to me and to everyone is over 50. Any non-sociopathic loss function would deem the half million people in the US that we've lost completely unacceptable. And with even greater spread, there's greater likelihood of the rise of a variant that kills those under 50 just as much. The only people proposing we should have let it run wild and also actually understand the consequences are absolute monsters that should be shunned and never given any authority or decision making power.
MereInterest 5y ago
No, that argument does not hold. The rate of mutation is proportional to the number of infected people. Every person infected over the course of the virus' spread is a single roll of the dice to see if a new variant arises. If X% of the population gets infected over the course of the virus, then you get the same number of mutations/variants regardless of the timeframe. Letting a disease spread rapidly just means that those variants all arise over a shorter period of time. The way to decrease the number of variants that emerge over the course of a disease is by decreasing the total number of people infected over the full course of the disease. That requires widespread vaccination.
techrat 5y ago
> Given the low infection fatality rate, if everyone under 50 in the US caught it, we would have around 30,000 deaths. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... If everyone under 50 caught it, we'd have had way more than 30,000 deaths at this point because we've already had at least 30,000 deaths. You also assume that Covid doesn't have serious long term complications arising from infections that are still being discovered. So you're basically suggesting that we yolo it during a pandemic and ignore the consequences of such. Contrary to your myopic understanding of the topic... total exposure during a pandemic is actually not the way to manage it. 'the rest of society would be well protected' but instead we likely would have had a total collapse if everyone were to be infected at the same time by allowing the 'virus to 'run its course'.
gridspy 5y ago
Lets say that only 1% die. 20% needed high-end medical intervention to not die. Once the infection rate hits a threshhold, the entire 20% die.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Source on your 20% number? That sounds really, really high.
  - hnzix 5y ago
    Hospitals hit capacity and run out of beds and ventilators. This is a hard threshold. Once you pass it, mortality goes through the roof.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      My point is even if hospitals were closed completely, it still seems unlikely that 20% of people who catch COVID would die from it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - nradov 5y ago
      Running out of ventilators would have minimal impact on the mortality rate. Mechanical ventilation is currently only used as a last resort for <5% of hospitalized patients, and even with ventilators many of those patients don't survive. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/nhcs/intubation-ventilator-use.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/nhcs/intubation-ventilator-... Beds can be added on a temporary basis. Availability of trained healthcare providers is the more relevant limit.
  - techrat 5y ago
    For every person in the hospital due to covid is another person not able to receive care. Hospital beds aren't unlimited. ICU beds full? Someone has a heart attack? Well, sucks to be them. That's the part of covid everyone is ignoring: it creates an additional burden on the health care system, hospitals that normally are booked solid for surgeries can no longer handle those cases due to the emergency influx from a pandemic spreading like wildfire.

epistasis 5y ago

> if everyone under 50 in the US caught it, we would have around 30,000 deaths. Personally, I value the lives of people over 50 just as much as those under 50. A lot of important people to me and to everyone is over 50. Any non-sociopathic loss function would deem the half million people in the US that we've lost completely unacceptable. And with even greater spread, there's greater likelihood of the rise of a variant that kills those under 50 just as much. The only people proposing we should have let it run wild and also actually understand the consequences are absolute monsters that should be shunned and never given any authority or decision making power.

MereInterest 5y ago

No, that argument does not hold. The rate of mutation is proportional to the number of infected people. Every person infected over the course of the virus' spread is a single roll of the dice to see if a new variant arises. If X% of the population gets infected over the course of the virus, then you get the same number of mutations/variants regardless of the timeframe. Letting a disease spread rapidly just means that those variants all arise over a shorter period of time. The way to decrease the number of variants that emerge over the course of a disease is by decreasing the total number of people infected over the full course of the disease. That requires widespread vaccination.

techrat 5y ago

> Given the low infection fatality rate, if everyone under 50 in the US caught it, we would have around 30,000 deaths. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... If everyone under 50 caught it, we'd have had way more than 30,000 deaths at this point because we've already had at least 30,000 deaths. You also assume that Covid doesn't have serious long term complications arising from infections that are still being discovered. So you're basically suggesting that we yolo it during a pandemic and ignore the consequences of such. Contrary to your myopic understanding of the topic... total exposure during a pandemic is actually not the way to manage it. 'the rest of society would be well protected' but instead we likely would have had a total collapse if everyone were to be infected at the same time by allowing the 'virus to 'run its course'.

gridspy 5y ago

Lets say that only 1% die. 20% needed high-end medical intervention to not die. Once the infection rate hits a threshhold, the entire 20% die.

josephcsible 5y ago
Source on your 20% number? That sounds really, really high.
- hnzix 5y ago
  Hospitals hit capacity and run out of beds and ventilators. This is a hard threshold. Once you pass it, mortality goes through the roof.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    My point is even if hospitals were closed completely, it still seems unlikely that 20% of people who catch COVID would die from it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - nradov 5y ago
    Running out of ventilators would have minimal impact on the mortality rate. Mechanical ventilation is currently only used as a last resort for <5% of hospitalized patients, and even with ventilators many of those patients don't survive. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/nhcs/intubation-ventilator-use.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/nhcs/intubation-ventilator-... Beds can be added on a temporary basis. Availability of trained healthcare providers is the more relevant limit.
- techrat 5y ago
  For every person in the hospital due to covid is another person not able to receive care. Hospital beds aren't unlimited. ICU beds full? Someone has a heart attack? Well, sucks to be them. That's the part of covid everyone is ignoring: it creates an additional burden on the health care system, hospitals that normally are booked solid for surgeries can no longer handle those cases due to the emergency influx from a pandemic spreading like wildfire.