Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[alfred russel]

The traffic fatality rate in India is something like 50 times higher than in many western countries.

Not really.  It is ten times that of the US and not even 50 times that of Norway, the lowest rate in the industrialized world (only San Marino is lower).

I think I should have specified in Delhi versus other major cities, but if we are looking at per vehicle mile traveled it is definitely more than 10 times the US rate even with rural miles.

[merithyn]

I do wonder whether anyone on languish has had it yet and just not realised.

Seedy works at a hospital with multiple CV patients right now. Luckily, he doesn't have direct patient care, but he does directly deal with the caregivers. So far he's fine, but they just hit his space in the last week or so. He's also a relatively healthy younger man compared to a geriatric patient with COPD.

Still.... a person worries.

Is he still smoking?  That's supposed to be a risk factor, or so they think.

No. He quit a while ago. And his blood pressure is under control now, too.

[FunkMonk]

Regular people, with elderly parents and siblings with pre-existing conditions: I'm worried about an outbreak that seems to be much more deadly to people I love.

The Languish Math Brigade: 2 plus 2 equals 4, morons.

[DGuller]

That's some bullshit math and you know it.

The math is fine, the comparison is bullshit.

People make individual decisions to drive each day because the probability of a fatality occurring is extremely low for that trip.  Total fatalities annually across the entire population are relatively high because the conduct is repeated so many times across the population.  The virus presents a much different situation - instead of endlessly repeated exposures to a tiny risk, it is a single exposure to a moderate risk.

The simple fact is if this virus spreads like the flu there are going to be very large number of deaths.

I don't disagree with the point, but you weakened it by making the virus appear to be 512,000 times deadlier than we currently believe to be the case. 

[merithyn]

Regular people, with elderly parents and siblings with pre-existing conditions: I'm worried about an outbreak that seems to be much more deadly to people I love.

The Languish Math Brigade: 2 plus 2 equals 4, morons.

[The Minsky Moment]

Seems to me this is a simple application of risk aversion.

There are three possible reactions, as measured ex post

1) React exactly and precisely in proportion to the threat, as measured ex post.  The chance of hitting this precise sweet spot ex ante is not great
2) Over-react
3) Under-react

Since (1) is unlikely, the real options are (2) or (3). But the cost of under-reacting at an increment "X" is likely to be higher than the cost of over-reacting at a similar increment.

Therefore it is rational to over-react.

[alfred russel]

The risk is miniscule if you aren't in an at risk group.

I realize that this is Wikipedia, but it is an easy source at hand:

As of 27 February, 2,811 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19. According to China's NHC, most of those who died were older patients – about 80% of deaths recorded were from those over the age of 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.[46] The case fatality rate has been estimated at around 2–3%.[47]

First, the 2.6% death rate is probably overstated: while you may miss people that have the disease and survive, it is unlikely you diagnose people with the disease, they die, and you miss their death. The numerator - deaths from coronavirus - is a more solid number than the denominator - total cases of coronavirus.

Second, there are two at risk groups identified above: over 60 and pre existing health conditions. If we just focus on the over 60 group--that is about 16% of the total population. If they account for 16% of the infected population, and have 80% of deaths, that means for those under 60 the death rate is actually just 0.6%. That assumes the 2.6% rate is accurate. If you lack preexisting conditions it is lower still.

[Barrister]

I do wonder whether anyone on languish has had it yet and just not realised.

Seedy works at a hospital with multiple CV patients right now. Luckily, he doesn't have direct patient care, but he does directly deal with the caregivers. So far he's fine, but they just hit his space in the last week or so. He's also a relatively healthy younger man compared to a geriatric patient with COPD.

Still.... a person worries.

Is he still smoking?  That's supposed to be a risk factor, or so they think.

No. He quit a while ago. And his blood pressure is under control now, too.

Funny how that works.

Good to hear.

[alfred russel]

That's some bullshit math and you know it.

The math is fine, the comparison is bullshit.

People make individual decisions to drive each day because the probability of a fatality occurring is extremely low for that trip.  Total fatalities annually across the entire population are relatively high because the conduct is repeated so many times across the population.  The virus presents a much different situation - instead of endlessly repeated exposures to a tiny risk, it is a single exposure to a moderate risk.

The simple fact is if this virus spreads like the flu there are going to be very large number of deaths.

I don't agree. Most people don't make daily decisions about whether to commute or drive--that is made on a much more irregular basis. For example, when you chose your employer and place of residence. Tomorrow I won't have much choice whether to drive to the grocery store--I need food and don't live near enough to a store to avoid driving. I could, however, have chosen to live in a location with a store in walking distance. I've chosen to live in a place that requires a commute to get to work and a drive to get groceries because the benefits outweigh the costs (which include the risk of dying in a traffic accident).

[The Minsky Moment]

The risk is miniscule if you aren't in an at risk group.

I realize that this is Wikipedia, but it is an easy source at hand:

As of 27 February, 2,811 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19. According to China's NHC, most of those who died were older patients – about 80% of deaths recorded were from those over the age of 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.[46] The case fatality rate has been estimated at around 2–3%.[47]

I highlighted one potential flaw in the reasoning.  You have to be willing to put faith in the accuracy of the reporting from NHC.

But let's say that is right.  I don't see how that changes the analysis, unless you are willing to put a very low value on the lives of older people, diabetics, and people with heart conditions. 

[alfred russel]

The risk is miniscule if you aren't in an at risk group.

I realize that this is Wikipedia, but it is an easy source at hand:

As of 27 February, 2,811 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19. According to China's NHC, most of those who died were older patients – about 80% of deaths recorded were from those over the age of 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.[46] The case fatality rate has been estimated at around 2–3%.[47]

I highlighted one potential flaw in the reasoning.  You have to be willing to a lot of faith in the accuracy of the reporting from NHC.

But let's say that is right.  I don't see how that changes the analysis, unless you are willing to put a very low value on the lives of older people, diabetics, and people with heart conditions.

It makes a tremendous difference. My father lives alone in Florida. He is both old (over 75) and has preexisting conditions. I talked to him last night. He is planning on locking himself down for several months if and when the disease arrives. That makes sense for him and I support him in that.

I work in a location that has a retirement age of 55. We are likely going to begin working from home in the event the virus arrives. My opinion is that is an overreaction for people that are not in high risk groups. (for those that are in a high risk group for other reasons, by all means they should work from home)

I understand that everyone locking down has less risks than a segment of the population locking down, but in this case i think it makes sense to lock down a segment of the population rather than everyone. If you look at other outbreaks, like Spanish Flu, the timeline extended over a year. It simply won't be proportionate for everyone to work from home and avoid public places that long.

[DGuller]

To put non-bullshit math out there (i.e. on comparable exposure basis), Americans have about 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in a traffic accident each year.  If 10% of Americans get infected with this virus, and the virus is only 1/5 as dangerous as believed due to undercounting of infections, that would be 1 in 2,000 chance of dying.  Nothing to sneeze at, but not quite black death material.  That said, if any of the two fudge factors are significantly off, that could be a catastrophic situation.

[The Minsky Moment]

According to Johns Hopkins which is tracking the cases, the global fatality rate is now at 3.4%

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

That could be a big overestimate if there are lots of undiagnosed recoveries out there, on the other hand, there are also lots of existing cases that could still end up in fatalities.

There is a lot of uncertainty about the data and what the true risks are, both in terms of transmission risk and speed and mortality risk.  Some people take comfort from that uncertainty.  I don't/

[alfred russel]

Lawyers are overly risk averse. Episode 99 zillion.

[Barrister]

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

The whole UI/colour scheme scares me all by itself - never mind the data it represents.