Original article here. Dr. Ioannidis is clearly making a number of best-case assumptions that aren't borne out by the basic statistics from China. China did perform extensive population-based...
Original article here. Dr. Ioannidis is clearly making a number of best-case assumptions that aren't borne out by the basic statistics from China.
China did perform extensive population-based testing and case-contact tracing; it's unlikely their mortality statistics are based solely on testing people who presented with serious symptoms. [Chinese data may also have biased the statistics on rates of under-50 morbidity and mortality because of the one-child policy; other countries are reporting more serious infections and deaths in younger age groups.]
We certainly need more testing and data, but nothing so far suggests the measures are an overreaction, and it may still be possible to get to zero new infections with a brief period of strict isolation, as China did.
Edit: the Worldometers site has useful statistics for multiple countries. The most significant mortality data is from "Closed Cases", because those reflect cases followed through the entire course of illness. We know that infections may take a critical turn after 7-10 days, and countries with developed health systems are reporting final mortality rates of 4% (Variation here is probably due to how "cases" are counted for closure - whether outpatients or hospitalized are counted.)
I can dream, can't I? 😠No, even if we had enough test kits and case tracing, we're unlikely to get it under control at this point, but it's still worth trying to avoid the situation in Italy or...
I can dream, can't I? 😠No, even if we had enough test kits and case tracing, we're unlikely to get it under control at this point, but it's still worth trying to avoid the situation in Italy or Iran. Even Italy is having some success with control in individual hotspots. If we have to fight it city by city, we should.
Even the "Safer at Home" emergency order issued in Los Angeles tonight is still fairly permissive, allowing people to go to the grocery, restaurants for take-out, walks around town, etc. It just...
Even the "Safer at Home" emergency order issued in Los Angeles tonight is still fairly permissive, allowing people to go to the grocery, restaurants for take-out, walks around town, etc. It just puts a ban on "non-essential" jobs. Fines and/or imprisonment are potential punishments for violations, though.
I'm pretty sure it's just a slight variation on the statewide edict. Dropped at the same time, anyway. Not sure if the statewide edict mentioned any punitive measures towards those not complying,...
I'm pretty sure it's just a slight variation on the statewide edict. Dropped at the same time, anyway. Not sure if the statewide edict mentioned any punitive measures towards those not complying, so maybe the Los Angeles order goes a bit further.
I shared the blog post yesterday and I think my take on it is better whether or not that's what the author meant. Here is how I would put it: driving blind is very bad. If we were not blind, maybe...
I shared the blog post yesterday and I think my take on it is better whether or not that's what the author meant.
Here is how I would put it: driving blind is very bad. If we were not blind, maybe we wouldn't need to pull over and shut down the economy. This has enormous cost that might not be necessary if we weren't blind.
This is not the same as saying, given that we are blind, we should keep driving as usual. It's saying that not having good data has enormous consequences.
Edit: that's an excessively binary take, but I think the same reasoning would work in the more nuanced version.
I think the parts you quoted aren't entirely wrong, but Dr. Ioannidis shared some statistics and assumptions that just aren't accurate. We do have models for various methods of containing COVID-19...
I think the parts you quoted aren't entirely wrong, but Dr. Ioannidis shared some statistics and assumptions that just aren't accurate. We do have models for various methods of containing COVID-19 spread, it's well-established that it's significantly more deadly than Dr. Ioannidis suggests, and 1918 'flu is a poor example both because COVID-19 is drastically more contagious and because the COVID-19 assumptions he makes are predicated on functioning modern healthcare systems.
Original article here. Dr. Ioannidis is clearly making a number of best-case assumptions that aren't borne out by the basic statistics from China.
China did perform extensive population-based testing and case-contact tracing; it's unlikely their mortality statistics are based solely on testing people who presented with serious symptoms. [Chinese data may also have biased the statistics on rates of under-50 morbidity and mortality because of the one-child policy; other countries are reporting more serious infections and deaths in younger age groups.]
We certainly need more testing and data, but nothing so far suggests the measures are an overreaction, and it may still be possible to get to zero new infections with a brief period of strict isolation, as China did.
Edit: the Worldometers site has useful statistics for multiple countries. The most significant mortality data is from "Closed Cases", because those reflect cases followed through the entire course of illness. We know that infections may take a critical turn after 7-10 days, and countries with developed health systems are reporting final mortality rates of 4% (Variation here is probably due to how "cases" are counted for closure - whether outpatients or hospitalized are counted.)
I can dream, can't I? 😠No, even if we had enough test kits and case tracing, we're unlikely to get it under control at this point, but it's still worth trying to avoid the situation in Italy or Iran. Even Italy is having some success with control in individual hotspots. If we have to fight it city by city, we should.
Even the "Safer at Home" emergency order issued in Los Angeles tonight is still fairly permissive, allowing people to go to the grocery, restaurants for take-out, walks around town, etc. It just puts a ban on "non-essential" jobs. Fines and/or imprisonment are potential punishments for violations, though.
There is a statewide order now. Not sure how it compares.
I'm pretty sure it's just a slight variation on the statewide edict. Dropped at the same time, anyway. Not sure if the statewide edict mentioned any punitive measures towards those not complying, so maybe the Los Angeles order goes a bit further.
I shared the blog post yesterday and I think my take on it is better whether or not that's what the author meant.
Here is how I would put it: driving blind is very bad. If we were not blind, maybe we wouldn't need to pull over and shut down the economy. This has enormous cost that might not be necessary if we weren't blind.
This is not the same as saying, given that we are blind, we should keep driving as usual. It's saying that not having good data has enormous consequences.
Edit: that's an excessively binary take, but I think the same reasoning would work in the more nuanced version.
I think the parts you quoted aren't entirely wrong, but Dr. Ioannidis shared some statistics and assumptions that just aren't accurate. We do have models for various methods of containing COVID-19 spread, it's well-established that it's significantly more deadly than Dr. Ioannidis suggests, and 1918 'flu is a poor example both because COVID-19 is drastically more contagious and because the COVID-19 assumptions he makes are predicated on functioning modern healthcare systems.
Yeah, I skimmed. Too much stuff to read.