Serological (statistical studies) vs. individually verified cases. There are many many cases that are never diagnosed and only calculated via population studies.
I doubt it is 20%. In Israel, there were 20,000 reported infections by 250,000 serologically indicated infections. In New York there were 1.7 million infection serologically speaking after the 'first wave.' Only 225,000 were diagnosed. Yes, there is significant morbidity, but not 20%.
I think we'll see a significant rise in depths and then quite the argument about whether C-19 or the economic and social side effects of C-19 are to blame.
You are stable and relatively rich. Economic collapse is indeed contagious. Social collapse can be as well.Both do kill - often those in the third-world first.
I agree with opening the economy, but they could very well get sick. This is a very real virus which is very dangerous (both in terms of mortality and morbitity). One doesn't strengthen the case for opening by ignoring that.
It isn't just one more virus. It is clearly far more deadly and is having a big impact on mortality. We are getting better at treating it. In Israel it is about as deadly as the flu (although morbidity is worse), the first 'wave' had about a 0.14% mortality rate. In the US, that rate was about 1.4%.
But it is *new* and so there are many many more cases. We had no boost in mortality, but the US certainly did. Put it this way, there might be 35 million with the flu. But there could be 250 million with COVID-19. Even if the death rate ends up being similar there could be many more deaths.
So I'm not suggesting what I'm suggesting because the virus isn't dangerous. The virus is very dangerous. I'm suggesting it because the alternatives are far more dangerous.
Latest Comments
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
And I'm arguing with the 20%. How could it be 20% when we don't even know about 85% of cases except through statistical surveys?
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
Serological (statistical studies) vs. individually verified cases. There are many many cases that are never diagnosed and only calculated via population studies.
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
I doubt it is 20%. In Israel, there were 20,000 reported infections by 250,000 serologically indicated infections. In New York there were 1.7 million infection serologically speaking after the 'first wave.' Only 225,000 were diagnosed. Yes, there is significant morbidity, but not 20%.
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
I think we'll see a significant rise in depths and then quite the argument about whether C-19 or the economic and social side effects of C-19 are to blame.
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
You are stable and relatively rich. Economic collapse is indeed contagious. Social collapse can be as well.Both do kill - often those in the third-world first.
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
I agree with opening the economy, but they could very well get sick. This is a very real virus which is very dangerous (both in terms of mortality and morbitity). One doesn't strengthen the case for opening by ignoring that.
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
The death rate for children in diagnosed (not serological) cases is here. I am not worried about my 6 children: ourworldindata.org/.../...CFR-by-age-1536x1190.png
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
No, I think it could be. 70% could get it. Parts of New York are approaching those rates from some sampling done.
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
It isn't just one more virus. It is clearly far more deadly and is having a big impact on mortality. We are getting better at treating it. In Israel it is about as deadly as the flu (although morbidity is worse), the first 'wave' had about a 0.14% mortality rate. In the US, that rate was about 1.4%.
But it is *new* and so there are many many more cases. We had no boost in mortality, but the US certainly did. Put it this way, there might be 35 million with the flu. But there could be 250 million with COVID-19. Even if the death rate ends up being similar there could be many more deaths.
So I'm not suggesting what I'm suggesting because the virus isn't dangerous. The virus is very dangerous. I'm suggesting it because the alternatives are far more dangerous.
Coronavirus: Let's Move On
Let me update that. It is tragic - tragic because it was avoidable if not for our laser focus on a single issue.