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.
🇳🇱
@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.
@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.
According to Fauci 26 Mar, the mortality rate is "considerably less than 1%"
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.
@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
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.
@sda