Anybody else thinking the cure is worse than the disease?

[semigoodlookin]

I've written elsewhere on here about my office's covid 19 infestation. I'm going to be tested for antibodies this week to confirm (two step process). Only one person got even mildly sick (well, to the point of hospitalization) out of almost 30 people exposed, and not one of their family members.

When someone you know dies, I could see how it hits you hard and possibly makes you refuse to consider evidence inconsistent with your view of the gravity of the situation. Particularly when many of the various media outlets, and public health authorities are relying on and making decisions based on very data-light analyses of worst case scenarios. Another dark issue is that it has been politicized, with some right wing people (notably our president) suggesting that it's not so bad. The fact that he's probably accidentally correct is sort of galling.

One thing is becoming clear - even if this thing is no deadlier than the seasonal flu, it spreads far far quicker. Which is probably one of the main things that make it seem so much more deadly - many more people will get it.

As more data come in, you should try to push past the politics, fear, and anecdotal experience, and continue to rely on the experts, who are already starting to revise their opinions, as they get access to better data. See here, for example: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-20/coronavirus-serology-testing-la-county

The good news is that this virus is far far less lethal than we had feared, at least two orders of magnitude less lethal that was sometimes suggested. The bad news is that before we knew that, we nuked the global economy.

Now, assuming the data continue to show what we've seen in the past week, we need to end the lockdowns.

I am not sure where I stand in this debate. However, wouldn't the quick way coronavirus spreads and the fact it killed 150,000 people globally in three months suggest the quarantine was neccesary? What I mean is, if it did that with nations in lockdown, what would it have done if it was business as usual? I keep repeating this, but people are too hung up on the mortality rate when the more important factor is infection rate.

If the mortality rate was 100% but it only infected 1 person, fine. If the mortality rate is 1% but it infects 1 billion, that's 10 million dead. As you point out, this is a very infectious virus and spreads quickly. It may infect tens of millions by the end regardless, but if left to its own devices that 1 billion infection number is not unlikely.

Having said that, I am not sure which side of this fence I fall on. I do believe we should never have got to a situation where the lockdown was neccesary. However, once we did get to that stage, I am not sure what other measure would have worked.

 

[Pierre Smith]

It's looking like the mortality rate is probably a touch over one tenth of one percent of those who become infected. Not insignificant. But, you know, worth possibly a lost decade?

 

[Pierre Smith]

So, onto solutions.

For America, way different. I'm on Russian Hill, in San Francisco, California. We have a totally different situation.

Back down in Argentina, assuming that the data continue to show that we're at the ~0.1% of infected death rate:

1) federal government should announce that the lockdowns will be lifted in 2 weeks;
2) regional governments should spend those two weeks identifying the most vulnerable;
3) the most vulnerable should probably be subject to a lottery, releasing them over a period of time that will not create crush at the hospitals, and everyone else should be let out;
4) during this entire time, all governments should be aggressively promoting various safety measures, and explaining that this virus really does spread quickly and hit vulnerable people hard, but also underlining that almost nobody is under the threat of death, and that almost everyone will pass asymptomatically; and
5) they should then implement all my various economic plans, as detailed in all my other posts! (End export tariffs! Stop paying debts! Open up to imports! A lot more!)

 

[semigoodlookin]

It's looking like the mortality rate is probably a touch over one tenth of one percent of those who become infected. Not insignificant. But, you know, worth possibly a lost decade?

Again, you're hung up on the mortality rate when the infection rate is more important. So, let's say the mortality rate is 0.1% like you suggest (not confirmed but we'll play with it). What if 2 billion people become infected? That's still 2 million people dead.

 

[Somewhereinba]

Its all fun and games til somebody you know dies. Then, another one. Then another one.

My brother who is 35 nearly died from did poisoning. Does that mean I start avoiding food?

3 million people died from lower respiratory infections in 2016, yet somehow no one was panicking or scared to go outside to avoid the flu and subsequent neumonia. 1.4 MILLION died due to road injuries yet we have not banned cars have we - and people seem to have no issues driving still.

My point is that there is always a risk to getting sick, this virus is another thing we will have to accept and live with. The same way we accept dengue or driving a car. You take precautions (seatbelts, mosquito bite protection) and move on with your life. Corona means we will have to be more aware of coughing in public, general hygiene and good testing just as we should be doing for the normal flu.

 

[Aztangogirl]

Like we've seen pointed out elsewhere (and including by me): the deadliness of this virus is far far lower than what people currently perceive it to be, at least a couple orders of magnitude.

Here's just the latest: https://laist.com/latest/post/20200...angeles-county-antibody-testing-early-results

It's becoming increasingly clear that this lockdown was a far blunter and more extreme form of action than necessary.

I can't agree. Look at what is happening in the US. Someone is dying every minute there. The hospitals are overwhelmed. Nursing homes are death traps. In South Dakota , over 800 people at one meat plant are infected. That is not happening here. Thank God.

 

[semigoodlookin]

1.4 MILLION died due to road injuries yet we have not banned cars have we - and people seem to have no issues driving still.

This has no place in the discussion but keeps getting brought up. Over 90% of collisions are casued by human error and if you are killed in a collision your vehicle won't spread "car crash" to other people. We already know how to prevent almost all fatal car crashes but cannot get humans to stop committing driving errors.

 

[Ries]

On the plus side, auto collision deaths are way down.

But without testing, accurate, reliable widespread testing, along with contact tracing and quarantine of known infected people, any idea of when we should "re-open" is complete speculation.

We have no idea what the mortality rate is- because we havent done enough testing to know who is infected but asymptomatic, or who had such mild symptoms they never were counted. Current studies are leading us to believe that even mild cases can have permanent brain damage, liver damage, kidney damage, and respiratory issues down the line- meaning those young, tough people who dont think they are worried if they get it may be on dialiysis in ten years.

The fact is, we just dont know.
We dont know actual infection rates, mortality rates, re-infection rates, (we dont know if it happens or not) we dont know if a vaccine is even possible- most viruses of this type have proven to be really vaccine resistant- and we dont know how it really spreads, who is most vulnerable- its all just speculation right now.

 

[Weyland]

This has no place in the discussion but keeps getting brought up. Over 90% of collisions are casued by human error and if you are killed in a collision your vehicle won't spread "car crash" to other people. We already know how to prevent almost all fatal car crashes but cannot get humans to stop committing driving errors.

Amen!!

In February, I wrote this in response to Ries who was comparing potential covid deaths to car accident deaths -

It's a question of fat tailed risks. There is no harm in following the precautionary principle where the spread can increase in a nonlinear way. It can't be compared to auto accidents because they are thin tailed, never multiplicative.

Many understand this now, but some continue to use car accidents deaths as a comparison tool. Statistically it makes no sense to do so.

The questions of is the cure worse than the disease and when and how to open things up are tough questions, which I don't pretend to know the answer to. I don't envy those who have to make the decision. They are screwed if they do, screwed if they don't.

Personally, I'd continue to err on the side of caution. Partly out of selfishness, so that my older family members and friends are not put at risk. The economy can always recover later on. Those who need help in the meantime should be helped.