6 ms·

So wrong. “If” sars1/2 had gone pandemic. The reason they didn’t is because they don’t make you infectious in an asymptomatic way like cov19. It wasn’t an “if.”

So wrong. “If” sars1/2 had gone pandemic. The reason they didn’t is because they don’t make you infectious in an asymptomatic way like cov19. It wasn’t an “if.” They never will. And also, covid 19 is not 1 to 4 percent lethal. It’s more like 0.02 percent lethal. A Stanford professor said so. But he could have said we were lucky to not have gotten hit by a different virus that kills 80% and travels asymptomatically. The real nightmare virus. It’s totally possible.

slg 5y ago
>And also, covid 19 is not 1 to 4 percent lethal. It’s more like 0.02 percent lethal. We have had roughly 860k COVID deaths in the US. At a 0.02% fatality rate that would equate to 4.3b cases. So are you suggesting the US death total is exaggerated or that the average American has already had COVID 10+ times?
- supperburg 5y ago
  The Stanford professor who I saw on a recent lex Friedman podcast confirmed what many people already suspected: the death count is exaggerated because the criteria for a Covid death is that a person is dead and also tests positive for Covid regardless of how the person really died. And also that cases were massively undercounted because of the fact that many people never have symptoms bad enough to justify any concern, testing or a hospital visit. That’s what he’s asserting and it’s true. He said when you sample randomly and follow positive testers to their conclusion, the lethality rate is something like 0.02%. I’m sorry that it upsets you to hear something you don’t already agree with
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    It's specious to claim knowledge of things unmeasured? Dial it back a bit there - maybe 'somewhat undercounted'. And is that criteria made up too? Show me.
    - supperburg 5y ago
      I don’t need to show you, go listen to the Stanford professor. Lex Fridman podcast in the past week or two. Am I an idiot for believing a current Stanford professor? Is it not a reputable source?
      - TranquilMarmot 5y ago
        > Lex Fridman (pronounced: Freedman) I'm an AI researcher working on autonomous vehicles, human-robot interaction, and machine learning at MIT and beyond. Honestly does not sound too reputable to me on this specific subject matter. Edit: I realize now that you are saying to listen to the podcast guest, not Lex Fridman himself. Is this the episode? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOGUYOPAsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOGUYOPAsA
        extra88 5y ago
        Probably. From the episode description: "Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration." "The Great Barrington Declaration […] advocated letting the virus spread in lower-risk groups with the aim of herd immunity, with "focused protection" of those most at risk." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya
      - saalweachter 5y ago
        0.25% of the US has already died of COVID-19. It doesn't matter who said it, how can 0.02% be a reasonable estimate for the IFR of the disease?
        josephcsible 5y ago
        This was already explained upthread: "the death count is exaggerated because the criteria for a Covid death is that a person is dead and also tests positive for Covid regardless of how the person really died."
  - slg 5y ago
    How would explain the excess deaths models[1] that often show that if anything the COVID deaths are undercounted? If the current COVID death total isn't accurate, what would be your ballpark estimates for the real death and case totals in the US? [1] - https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
    - nsonha 5y ago
      I won't be able to explain that, because this is how much explanation given > machine-learning model, which estimates excess deaths for every country on every day since the pandemic began. It is based both on official excess-mortality data and on more than 100 other statistical indicators let me get the premise of this right: they built a "machine learning" model, using empirical data from normal years, and magical "statistical indicators", to predict excess deaths in a time of unprecedented events. Then, when the model does not fit, the conclusion isn't that the "model" is full of shit, but the "COVID deaths are undercounted"?
hinkley 5y ago
> 0.02 percent lethal. A Stanford professor said so. Sometimes you have to stop listening to what people say and get out your own tape measure/calculator. If not for yourself, so other people can take you seriously. We have .25% of Americans officially dead from COVID so far. Not of infected Americans, of the general population. If not more person dies, "A Standford Professor" is already off by a factor of 12. Officially 1 in 5.7 of us (58m out of 331m) has been diagnosed, so even if there are people who got mild cases and didn't report, that number is likely to climb to anywhere between .7-1.4% of the overall population. Dead. In the ground. That's almost two orders of magnitude off. And if we cluster so much that hospital resources are exhausted, then that number will be higher.
- supperburg 5y ago
  I went back and checked. 0.2 overall 0.05 for most people under 70 or 60. Based on pre-vaccine serology test with a follow up on death. False positive rate of 0.05% percent. So not 1% and definitely not 4%. Can you blame me for being mad when I see guys saying 4%? It’s misinformation according to science and Stanford professors of medicine.
  - hinkley 5y ago
    We are not on the same 'side' in this conversation, but I have to issue this warning to people who are plenty of times so I'll give you the courtesy: When people don't want to agree with you, you have to be very very careful what statements and measures you use in your arguments. Because if you're off by a factor of X, then they will take what you say as hyperbole or outright lies. I'm not sure what X is, but it seems to be somewhere between 8 and 20. If you say that I'm lying or stupid because the numbers I'm using are off by a factor of 3, then you look like a wackadoo if you substitute numbers that are off by a factor of 20 in the other direction. Its why I keep comparing registered dead to the US population. That number is way below the actual rate, but until we learn that people are getting COVID three times and dying the second or third time, we can't have more than 331m people who have been exposed, so actual dead divided by population is a very, very pessimistic lower bar on the ratio. If my argument holds, or is even plausible, with the worst case version of my numbers, then the argument holds, even if that means I'm lowballing the priority of any actions I propose we take. The latter can get us into plenty of trouble, and often does. But first you have to admit there's a problem before you can get any help (I solo a lot of things that I 'know' are a problem but can't sell anyone else on, and I deal with the consequences of that, but death is hardly ever on the line.)

slg 5y ago

>And also, covid 19 is not 1 to 4 percent lethal. It’s more like 0.02 percent lethal. We have had roughly 860k COVID deaths in the US. At a 0.02% fatality rate that would equate to 4.3b cases. So are you suggesting the US death total is exaggerated or that the average American has already had COVID 10+ times?

supperburg 5y ago
The Stanford professor who I saw on a recent lex Friedman podcast confirmed what many people already suspected: the death count is exaggerated because the criteria for a Covid death is that a person is dead and also tests positive for Covid regardless of how the person really died. And also that cases were massively undercounted because of the fact that many people never have symptoms bad enough to justify any concern, testing or a hospital visit. That’s what he’s asserting and it’s true. He said when you sample randomly and follow positive testers to their conclusion, the lethality rate is something like 0.02%. I’m sorry that it upsets you to hear something you don’t already agree with
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  It's specious to claim knowledge of things unmeasured? Dial it back a bit there - maybe 'somewhat undercounted'. And is that criteria made up too? Show me.
  - supperburg 5y ago
    I don’t need to show you, go listen to the Stanford professor. Lex Fridman podcast in the past week or two. Am I an idiot for believing a current Stanford professor? Is it not a reputable source?
    - TranquilMarmot 5y ago
      > Lex Fridman (pronounced: Freedman) I'm an AI researcher working on autonomous vehicles, human-robot interaction, and machine learning at MIT and beyond. Honestly does not sound too reputable to me on this specific subject matter. Edit: I realize now that you are saying to listen to the podcast guest, not Lex Fridman himself. Is this the episode? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOGUYOPAsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOGUYOPAsA
      - extra88 5y ago
        Probably. From the episode description: "Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration." "The Great Barrington Declaration […] advocated letting the virus spread in lower-risk groups with the aim of herd immunity, with "focused protection" of those most at risk." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya
    - saalweachter 5y ago
      0.25% of the US has already died of COVID-19. It doesn't matter who said it, how can 0.02% be a reasonable estimate for the IFR of the disease?
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        This was already explained upthread: "the death count is exaggerated because the criteria for a Covid death is that a person is dead and also tests positive for Covid regardless of how the person really died."
- slg 5y ago
  How would explain the excess deaths models[1] that often show that if anything the COVID deaths are undercounted? If the current COVID death total isn't accurate, what would be your ballpark estimates for the real death and case totals in the US? [1] - https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
  - nsonha 5y ago
    I won't be able to explain that, because this is how much explanation given > machine-learning model, which estimates excess deaths for every country on every day since the pandemic began. It is based both on official excess-mortality data and on more than 100 other statistical indicators let me get the premise of this right: they built a "machine learning" model, using empirical data from normal years, and magical "statistical indicators", to predict excess deaths in a time of unprecedented events. Then, when the model does not fit, the conclusion isn't that the "model" is full of shit, but the "COVID deaths are undercounted"?

hinkley 5y ago

> 0.02 percent lethal. A Stanford professor said so. Sometimes you have to stop listening to what people say and get out your own tape measure/calculator. If not for yourself, so other people can take you seriously. We have .25% of Americans officially dead from COVID so far. Not of infected Americans, of the general population. If not more person dies, "A Standford Professor" is already off by a factor of 12. Officially 1 in 5.7 of us (58m out of 331m) has been diagnosed, so even if there are people who got mild cases and didn't report, that number is likely to climb to anywhere between .7-1.4% of the overall population. Dead. In the ground. That's almost two orders of magnitude off. And if we cluster so much that hospital resources are exhausted, then that number will be higher.

supperburg 5y ago
I went back and checked. 0.2 overall 0.05 for most people under 70 or 60. Based on pre-vaccine serology test with a follow up on death. False positive rate of 0.05% percent. So not 1% and definitely not 4%. Can you blame me for being mad when I see guys saying 4%? It’s misinformation according to science and Stanford professors of medicine.
- hinkley 5y ago
  We are not on the same 'side' in this conversation, but I have to issue this warning to people who are plenty of times so I'll give you the courtesy: When people don't want to agree with you, you have to be very very careful what statements and measures you use in your arguments. Because if you're off by a factor of X, then they will take what you say as hyperbole or outright lies. I'm not sure what X is, but it seems to be somewhere between 8 and 20. If you say that I'm lying or stupid because the numbers I'm using are off by a factor of 3, then you look like a wackadoo if you substitute numbers that are off by a factor of 20 in the other direction. Its why I keep comparing registered dead to the US population. That number is way below the actual rate, but until we learn that people are getting COVID three times and dying the second or third time, we can't have more than 331m people who have been exposed, so actual dead divided by population is a very, very pessimistic lower bar on the ratio. If my argument holds, or is even plausible, with the worst case version of my numbers, then the argument holds, even if that means I'm lowballing the priority of any actions I propose we take. The latter can get us into plenty of trouble, and often does. But first you have to admit there's a problem before you can get any help (I solo a lot of things that I 'know' are a problem but can't sell anyone else on, and I deal with the consequences of that, but death is hardly ever on the line.)