Do Covid-19 death rates by age suggest a path to staying open in a second wave?(docs.google.com)
docs.google.com
Do Covid-19 death rates by age suggest a path to staying open in a second wave?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hbnDIwW8MPE5X5bMwEMGD-DiR-HLEGpqzZKiNi2dkc8/edit
22 comments
While I've had thoughts along these lines as the "pragmatic" thing to do - given that the population level health effects of a busted economy and the fact that we're probably not changing the system anytime soon - we should still acknowledge that there's a lot we don't know about covid and that this would be a huge experiment. There are follow on health effects from both chicken pox (shingles) and polio viruses, for example, that often happen decades after their first onset - so we could have a "bonus" surprise from covid down the line. This would be to gain an immunity that is not assured as of yet - because we still don't know enough.
Yes. The Navy experience (60%+ asymptomatic) and others (almost completely asymptomatic homeless shelter with large percentage positive tests) indicate we have been given hugely false or misleading stats about this virus.
Once we can beat proper stats out of the government with large-scale testing, it may become clear that we are already well on our way to herd immunity, and that the vast majority of healthy people without serious secondary issues will be fine (perhaps unhappy and hurting, but will survive).
Of course, encourage any fearful or ill people to continue segregation.
But, this segregation of otherwise healthy low risk population just has to stop. It is nuts.
Once we can beat proper stats out of the government with large-scale testing, it may become clear that we are already well on our way to herd immunity, and that the vast majority of healthy people without serious secondary issues will be fine (perhaps unhappy and hurting, but will survive).
Of course, encourage any fearful or ill people to continue segregation.
But, this segregation of otherwise healthy low risk population just has to stop. It is nuts.
There's also the Stanford study of Santa Clara residents which shows asymptomatic infection/recovery 50-85 times the official numbers.
I think Andrew Gelman raised some serious concerns with that study.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...
And this from reason.
https://reason.com/2020/04/17/covid-19-lethality-not-much-di...
https://reason.com/2020/04/17/covid-19-lethality-not-much-di...
We don't give vaccines to people without subjecting them to comprehensive and time-consuming clinical trials. So why would we willingly subject half the population to a virus that we seem to know very little about? Are there long term health effects to an "otherwise healthy" person being infected with COVID-19? Are there potential long-term lung issues, even in a person who is symptomatic but does not require hospitalization?
I worry about these things based simply on reading the anecdotes of many younger, healthy people who have dealt with this virus. It's extremely clear in those anecdotes that this virus is nothing like the common cold or the flu. Yet so much of the rhetoric seems to make that assumption.
I'd hate to take the "this is silly, let's open things up for the healthy" approach only to be in a situation 20 years from now where we are dealing with the misery of mass-scale respiratory disease that gets linked back to these infections.
I worry about these things based simply on reading the anecdotes of many younger, healthy people who have dealt with this virus. It's extremely clear in those anecdotes that this virus is nothing like the common cold or the flu. Yet so much of the rhetoric seems to make that assumption.
I'd hate to take the "this is silly, let's open things up for the healthy" approach only to be in a situation 20 years from now where we are dealing with the misery of mass-scale respiratory disease that gets linked back to these infections.
To author: please include a date and changelog in this document, assuming it will be updated to reflect new data and comments on the doc.
My guess is a lot of the assumptions and conclusions are wrong but that the high-level takeaway is correct: we should be looking for solutions to safely (yes, safely, don't ignore that word please if you're going to reply and disagree) reopen the economy, rather than just do the "social distancing until we have a vaccine" thing.
edit to try and preempt the downvotes: I am supportive of social distancing and I'm observing it pretty strictly. But I also know a lot of people who are going to be in a lot of trouble if we're in this state for too long. We should be aggressively trying to get data that helps us get back to as normal a life as we can, safely.
edit to try and preempt the downvotes: I am supportive of social distancing and I'm observing it pretty strictly. But I also know a lot of people who are going to be in a lot of trouble if we're in this state for too long. We should be aggressively trying to get data that helps us get back to as normal a life as we can, safely.
What I've seen epidemiologists recommend: lock down long enough to build up testing and tracing and reduce infections to a point where tracing is practical, then you can open back up and isolate individual cases.
Trouble is, we haven't ramped up testing enough and we're heading toward opening prematurely. According to Harvard we need about three times as much daily testing to open safely: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/17/us/coronaviru...
Trouble is, we haven't ramped up testing enough and we're heading toward opening prematurely. According to Harvard we need about three times as much daily testing to open safely: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/17/us/coronaviru...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Filled with bullshit jobs and a lagging technological scene, we've set our economy up for vulnerability and i hope even if it opens we dont go back to bullshit as usual.
No. We assume immunity which is not guaranteed and may be transient. We need to break transmission chains by physical distancing.
Physical distancing is a costly measure. It would be economically cheaper for the young and healthy to self-infect and then self-quarantine. Their chances of dying or even hospitalization is basically a rounding error in that demographic. That way, they can't spread it to other people. Herd immunity should be accelerated, not decelerated.
The evidence so far seems to show that there is immunity to it after recovery (as well as the rest of the corona viruses). Immunity is not permanent, it last 6-18 months from what I understand.
Physical distancing is another alternative but is enormously expensive to the economy.
The evidence so far seems to show that there is immunity to it after recovery (as well as the rest of the corona viruses). Immunity is not permanent, it last 6-18 months from what I understand.
Physical distancing is another alternative but is enormously expensive to the economy.
Young people do die though and will with this.
Herd immunity without a vaccine is condemning thousands of people to die.
Herd immunity without a vaccine is condemning thousands of people to die.
Some on this site seem to be ruthlessly selfish. They do not care about those who are at risk - and would rather rush back to the way things were.
It's ethically vile, and deserves nothing but spit.
That anyone will die should be reason enough to slow down and do the right thing. Covid-19 has revealed how thin some margins are for businesses we need to survive. Condemning the sick to die and going back to normal isn't just cruel and evil - it's shortsighted and foolish.
We need to change.
It's ethically vile, and deserves nothing but spit.
That anyone will die should be reason enough to slow down and do the right thing. Covid-19 has revealed how thin some margins are for businesses we need to survive. Condemning the sick to die and going back to normal isn't just cruel and evil - it's shortsighted and foolish.
We need to change.
Young people can "die" from this in the same sense that they can also "die" from the flu. But the infection fatality rate is extremely low. Hell, we can start with the military, they are in great shape.
But my reasoning is that "condemning thousands of people to die" is the wrong way to look at it. You can look at it as "saving a million lives". Hell, by making driving legal "we are condemning 35,000 people to die every year". At a certain point, certain tradeoffs become reasonable.
But my reasoning is that "condemning thousands of people to die" is the wrong way to look at it. You can look at it as "saving a million lives". Hell, by making driving legal "we are condemning 35,000 people to die every year". At a certain point, certain tradeoffs become reasonable.
There was an episode on Planet Money that ran cost benefit analysis and their conclusion was that it makes sense to lock down because just trying to get to herd immunity will cost more.
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/15/835571843/episode-991-lives-v...
So even by the standard of the argument you are making, it makes dollars and sense to lock down.
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/15/835571843/episode-991-lives-v...
So even by the standard of the argument you are making, it makes dollars and sense to lock down.
Environmental: More researched and standardized procedures for interacting with those at risk. For example, we should determine if/how items need to be sanitized when an at-risk person receives them (such a grocery/food deliveries, etc...). Environmental changes could also include physical requirements, such as meeting such persons through plexiglass panels or mandating protective gear.
Legal: Labor and welfare/disability laws need to adapt to the situation so those at risk are not forced to re-enter society in order to support themselves and their families. Not everyone at risk is elderly and already in retirement; many people in their prime working years have underlying conditions that affect their health, but were still able to work with few or no limitations (until COVID-19). Not every job can be completed at home, and not everyone has savings to stay home indefinitely. Without support from the government or their employers, they'll be between a proverbial rock and hard place.
Another issue is low-risk people who live with high-risk people. Should a low-risk partner stay home if the other is high-risk? How will society support those situations?