Does the lockdown make sense? We all go to the local neighbourhood supermarkets to shop, where we bump into everyone locally, anyway.
We have no idea how many are infected; just the reported cases that are symptomatic.
Iceland has voluntary testing in place, and 50% of those tested are asymptomatic.
Note that this is voluntary, though a more scientific approach is underway. So we know at least 50% are asymptomatic, and I expect that percentage to be actually higher. Only time will tell.
@freemo But if the actual death rate is low, lower than that of your typical flu, does it make sense to do the lockdowns? Note that that is not the same as quarantines.
Once a week will slow the progress a bit, not halt it dead in its tracks... and the exponential spread... it may double once every 10 days rather than once every 3.
it may be that CoVID-19 will not complete running its course until:
1) Nearly everyone is infected,
2) Nearly everyone is inoculated, once we have a vaccine, if we ever get that at all.
And so, the cost-benefit analysis of the lockdown (borders, physical presence at jobs, etc.) vs. just quarantining the infected -- even with the low mortality rate -- has to be weighed careful against both the economic and psychological impacts -- which could also lead to death.
I am not at all confident that those in power know how to properly decide in such a manner. Politicians are typically not mathematicians.
🇳🇱
@lordalveric It isnt, we have more than enough data to know that the death rate is many orders of magnitude higher than the flu after calculating in asymptomatic carriers.. so no
No one is trying to halt it dead in its tracks, you seem to be missing the whole point. The point is exactly as you describe "slow it a bit", the point isnt to eliminate the virus that is impossible and was never the intent.
We are trying to "flatten the curve" as they say.. the number infected in the end wont change, that willb e the herd immunity point. What we want to do is make sure the infections dont all happen at once but instead are spread out over a longer period of time. this ensures our hospitals dont get overloaded and the sick can be treated.
@freemo We still do not have good asymptomatic figures for most countries. Iceland right now perhaps represents the best known.
Again, yes, we don't want to overwhelm the hospitals, as what happened in Italy. BUT, how long do we "slow" the growth before it starts to have fatalities elsewhere?
This is really something akin to a linear programming problem. Except the growth rates are exponential, not linear. I suppose one could log it to make it appear "linear".
I am not aware of this analysis being performed at all.
Meanwhile, I shall continue in my amped up daily doses of vitamin C, Zinc, capsaicin, etc.
@lordalveric You dont need it for "most countries" the asymptomatic percentages would be about the same, its the same virus in different countries.
But if your just arguing we need better testing, no arguments from me on that, it would be great, more data always is..
But the need for quarintine is inescapable no matter how you dice it.
But yea we also cant quarantine forever.. for now its clear its needed. But I agree there comes a point where eventually (in a month or two) it probably would do more harm than good. But we arent there yet. This thing is still spreading pretty fast even with the quarintine so either way it will resolve itself soon enough for better or worse.
@freemo I am speaking basically to lockdowns, NOT quarantines. And yes, testen, testen, testen! (as it is said here.)
Just a basic 5-minute serological test, self-administered, would be much better than what we have now.
Then, the approach can be similar to what was done in South Koera or Iceland -- just quarantine those known to be infected, and track the rest.
There are some really thorny privacy issues here, and allowing any government to sink their teeth into that will make it difficult to "claw it back" once the pandemic is over.
@lordalveric Testing an entire population, something youd have to do multiple times over, is no small task, especially when you understand how the existing tests work.. but in theory if that were possible it would help yea.
@freemo I know it will not be easy, but anything would be better than these annoying lockdowns that are everywhere right now.
@lordalveric Well at the moment it isnt just not easy, it isnt possible. But with the proper investments in technology it would be, but your talking **huge** investments.
@freemo As opposed to the huge costs of these lockdowns? Again, this is a linear programming problem in its simplest form.
What is the optimal solution among may variables, some known, some unknown, or perhaps known only to a level of uncertainty?
Those of us in our field can easily work from home. Those in retail and in the restaurant business, and other "non-essential" service type jobs, manufacturing, etc., are out of a job right now, or soon will be.
The greatest and most devastating impact will be those at the lower-end of the economic spectrum. If the lockdown is much longer than just a couple of months, there will be blood in the streets.
@lordalveric Well considering investing in such infrastructure would be months to years away to completion, it would not prevent the current lockdown costs it would be in **addition** to it. So yea your not solving the current problem anyway only potentially solving future problems of a similar nature.
@freemo I think the vaccine could potentially be years down the road. But we do have a viable treatment possibility which should be aggressively pursued in every country dealing with this crisis.
It seems to me that the governments are really dragging their feet in this area, and we are talking low-lying fruit.
@lordalveric Considering we have failed at every attempt over decades to make vaccines for all sorts of coronaviruses it is likely we may never see a vaccine.
However herd immunity is likely to be reached long before we have testing capacity to test the entire world several times over (or even just the USA or europe). After that point even though the virus will still be in the wild quarintines will no longer be needed as the R value will be fairly low and hospital capacity can keep up.
@freemo I fear your assessment on the vaccine possibility is correct.
Knowing the R factor for CoVID-19 is tricky business. Especially with the mutations. Asymptomatic cases is a big unknown, and I do not expect that to be the same across different populations., though it may not differ by much.
Well, we'll see how this all plays out. We can speculate about this until we are blue in the face.
But all this uncertainty makes it difficult to plan for the future.
- I know a fancy math trick that works on board games, why don't these stupid humans use it to solve the world?!
- Hello citizen! Would you like to volunteer for "collateral damage"?
According to Fauci 26 Mar, the mortality rate is "considerably less than 1%"
@sda Last i checked in the US, it was .056xxx% , but that was some time ago@freemo @lordalveric
Source, because he cited a number of "1% or greater" just a week or so ago on his interview that I watched. So if he changed that opinion I'd be curious to hear the source.
@freemo @lordalveric
"If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2"
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2002387
Ok... so he didnt say it was considerably less than 1% at all.. read what he just said "if one assumes".. He never said that was the reality, only that it **could** be if a particular assumption (which so far has not been proven) turns out to be true.
Current studies show the percentage of asymptomatic carriers who never develop symptoms later are at 25%, that number may change as we have more data, but that's the best number to date. As such the "if one assumes" clause fails as asymptomatic cases, while significant, are stila minority and are nowhere near "several times" higher than the symptomatic cases.
The "assumption" is medical speak for the most reasonable case given the facts we have... or that we don't have.
If he didn't believe that to be the case, he wouldn't have used it in his hypothesis.
No thats not true, nor typical medical speak.
He has no idea how many people are asymptomatic. He used it as a hypothesis because he knows it is **possible** and thus worthy of consideration. Not because he believes it to be the most likely. Especially considering it is not the commonly accepted narrative based on the data we currently have.
Contrast that with the fact that fauci right now continually sites the 1% figure when talking about mortality, if he thought that assumption was most likely to be true he would have changed the figure he cites in talks, he has not. Just see his trevor noah interview from a week ago, he is still citing 1% as the most likely mortality rate.
@freemo @lordalveric
> He has no idea how many people are asymptomatic
Then he has no idea whether 1% is an order of magnitude off.
Correct he doesnt know with any certaintly. 1% is simply our best guesses based off current, limited, data. The error is high, the real number could be way different, but its still the best number we have so far, and thus why he tends to cite it.
With that said, there is enough error for him to also posit other possibilities based on potential assumptions, as the one you posted. It may not be our most likely guess, but still possible and we wont know till we collect more data.
What we do know is there has been very limited random testing, but what random testing has been done (germany and iceland) the asymptomatic numbers appear to be around 25% and in no cases approach anywhere near the assumption he posited (significantly more than the symptomatic cases).
@freemo @sda
If we go with the 25% asymptomatic rate, then, at this moment, we are showing 1.6 million known to have been infected, so the actual number would be k/(1-p) giving us a bit over 2 million actually infected, p = 25%
Then we can use that to calculate the actual R factor, etc., and then come up with some sort of meaningful estimate of the progression of CoVID-19.
No that's not how you would run those numbers at all.. The infection rate isn't randomly sampled, so you cant make the inference you just tried to make.
You are also forgetting that the percentage of people reported infected also includes asymptomatic people who happened to be tested.
So no your numbers would be nonsense.
@freemo @sda Here we go again.
This is just a rough estimate at best. The percentage factor is a pure guess. Obviously, if more are tested, that percentage factor would have to be lowered.
If you do a proper random sample with a high enough confidence rating, you can dispense with guessing altogether.
So whatever you derive from the initial guess will necessarily have a high degree of uncertainty, which would be "nonsense" in any case.
You know, like all the guessing and assumptions going on with climate change.
Yes its a guess, and a very poor one. In all likelihood the total infected rate is a great deal higher even at 25% asymptomatic. The number of infected detected is **not** anywhere close to the number infected in the wild.
@lordalveric Yes it makes sense.. obviously bumping into people locally rarely, once a week is far far better than bumping into them daily..
Yes a lot of people are asymptomatic, which is what makes the quarintine even more important, you cant tell who is a risk or not.