usaar333

47 ms·

541.
by usaar333 7y ago
Yes, I agree it is preliminary and not too much should be drawn off it. Every country is missing large numbers of cases, so CFR doesn't mean much - randomized testing is what is needed. Imperial College's paper (linked above which
542.
by usaar333 7y ago
An average age of 59 on the Diamond Princess (1.8% CFR) is not representative of the general population. This is a substantially more at-risk group. Germany and Singapore are also missing many infections. A recent serological study in Germ
543.
by usaar333 7y ago
5.7 in Wuhan. That could be true for NYC as well, but is far less likely to be true in the rest of the lower density country. That said I agree with you that infections are likely in the 10M range.
544.
by usaar333 7y ago
15% of pregnant woman in NYC that delivered had active Covid infections ( https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316 ) detectable by PCR. It's highly unlikely under 20% of the population was infect
545.
by usaar333 7y ago
It is not plausible they caught most cases. Here's the result of randomized testing in Iceland, which also has the virus under control and has done even more testing per capita ( https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1
546.
by usaar333 7y ago
Good post discussing Rt (rarely brought up), but a few points are lacking: * in the face of increasing (and volatile) testing capacity, Rt is being significantly over-estimated by looking at case counts. It's improbable CA still had a
547.
by usaar333 7y ago
> Right now, 0.1% of the US has had Covid-19 By any reasonable estimate, it's over 1%. Highly infected areas like NYC likely exceed 10% > So, what's the plan here? It's not feasable to get herd immunity in a world as op
548.
by usaar333 7y ago
Does the town have any nursing homes? Those are accounting for a large percent of deaths in the United States. (Around 20% in California). If a small town has already shipped its least healthy population away, its IFR will look lower.
549.
by usaar333 7y ago
My numbers generally comes from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... . That paper would give about 3% for a 70 year old. But remember that cruise passengers are healthy enough to be
550.
by usaar333 7y ago
We have to be pretty careful about demographic adjustments. Does the town surveyed have any nursing homes or hospitals? If not, that'll drastically drop the death rate. By my napkin math, you get to about a 2-fold difference which exp
551.
by usaar333 7y ago
1. A healthy 30 something has an IFR of something like 0.1%. Doesn't justify a lockdown for a year; does for a couple months. 3. Sweden has experienced over 500 covid deaths in a week. That's a 30% excess death rate. Hardly &quot
552.
by usaar333 7y ago
> Leaving the entire population with lasting immunity Based on what we know, I don't see how you could carve a large enough population group out where you have < 1/300 chance of death and < 1/50 chance of being hospi
553.
by usaar333 7y ago
That's literally what both Iceland and South Korea rely on. Neither country has SIPs (Iceland even has primary schools open) and the peak is behind them. (Iceland's outbreak is at about the same infection rate as the Bay Area if
554.
by usaar333 7y ago
I'm not sure how to interpret hard vs. easy in this context. The measures they took to protect people (not touching) has no effect on the real risk (shouting/singing in a crowded room), which again should have already been known
555.
by usaar333 7y ago
Where did the article ( https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/corona... ) say they maintained a 6 foot distance? If anything it suggests they were closer (foot between chairs, people weren'
556.
by usaar333 7y ago
Singing for 2 hours in a crowded indoor setting hardly qualifies as social distancing.
557.
by usaar333 7y ago
I think you are copying the section of when there is no force majeur section. See this legal article covering schools " https://www.fisherphillips.com/resources-alerts-comprehensiv... -- they aren't legally obligat
558.
by usaar333 7y ago
There's all sorts of Force Majeure rules in life and contracts. e.g. I still have to pay for my kid's preschool she can't use. (Edit: Prepaid, not getting a refund) I'm not sympathetic to the airlines at all and think t
559.
by usaar333 7y ago
Fair point. In some sense, I share your feelings a bit (in a lighter sense). The park closings some Bay Area counties are doing (e.g. San Mateo) feel not justified; I'm also not sure why the SIP was extended all the way into May given
560.
by usaar333 7y ago
That is an interesting point and I'm not sure how public health officials are treating it. I'm in tech WFH so I don't see even half my life being lost from the lockdown (maybe 20%), but YMMV.
561.
by usaar333 7y ago
> They are likely not considering that even the younger are taking as much as a 1% risk of their life, which is incredibly high. Depending on factors like the load on the medical community at the time and others, it can get as high as 5%
562.
by usaar333 7y ago
We're not going to hold stay at home forever - even Wuhan is exiting lockdown (after 2.5 months).
563.
by usaar333 7y ago
Oddly enough, here in the Bay Area (SIP 2.5 weeks in), most restaurants seem open. Take-out is a thing after all. Travel/conference focused items (hotels, venues, cruises) are much more affected.
564.
by usaar333 7y ago
> The curve will barely flatten, before 'peak infection' is reached. At the current rate, we have only 1 or 2 months to accomplish this, and no progress so far. The curve is flat (at least the new "X" curve) in both S
565.
by usaar333 7y ago
Agreed. But to the point above, is it better to have 5000 people under age 50 die or just keep the current regime (which will probably start emerging mostly as a ban on leaving the city) up for 18 months?
566.
by usaar333 7y ago
The problem is the hospitalization rate is too high even for a younger population. If you could target even 2% hospitalized at 60% of population, you would still need >4+ years at current capacity to get through this. You'd also s
567.
by usaar333 7y ago
It's unlikely that even 1% of the United States has been infected at this point. What does the other 99+% do? Infect themselves?
568.
by usaar333 7y ago
It's the same price as what your employer was paying. It's only more expensive than getting it yourself if you are A) younger than the average of your employers' pool or B) qualify for premium assistance/medicaid.
569.
by usaar333 7y ago
> but I’ve had plenty of friends who have at various stages had to face questions about health insurance or rent Do affordability tests not apply once you are laid off? I would think your premium subsidies would go up and you can get an
570.
by usaar333 7y ago
> That means people who quit or are laid off will end up having to pay more for their healthcare at a time when they don't have any income. (ignoring tax issues) They aren't really "paying more", it's just their

More ›