Shouldn't COVID-19's Lethality Inform the Response to It?

Reason.com ^ | 4.22.2020 | Jacob Sullum

[daniel1212]

Evidence that the virus is much less deadly than people feared weakens the case for maintaining lockdowns....

The way Department of Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer framed the study's results raises a question that policy makers across the country will confront as they consider when and how to loosen sweeping restrictions aimed at curtailing the COVID-19 epidemic. Will they be guided by emerging evidence, or will they use it to support the policies they already favored?..

The Los Angeles County study, conducted by University of Southern California researchers in collaboration with Ferrer's department, tested a representative sample of 863 adults for antibodies to the virus in early April. About 4 percent of them tested positive, indicating that the number of adults in the county who had been infected by the virus was roughly 40 times the number of confirmed cases at the time.

Confirmed cases are limited to people who have tested positive for the virus, and testing so far has been skewed toward people with severe symptoms. Since people infected by the virus typically experience mild to no symptoms, it is not surprising that the official tally understates the number of infections, although the apparent size of the gap is striking.

In contrast with the current crude case fatality rate of about 4.5 percent, Ferrer said, the study suggests that 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of people infected by the virus will die, which would make COVID-19 only somewhat more deadly than the seasonal flu....

That finding is consistent with the results of an earlier antibody study in Santa Clara County. "The mortality rate now has dropped a lot," Ferrer conceded.

That point, assuming it is confirmed by other studies, surely should figure in any cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns, which are depriving millions of Americans of their liberty and livelihoods in the hope of saving lives. Politicians who supported those restrictions were powerfully influenced by terrifying projections of COVID-19 deaths that assumed a fatality rate at least four times as high as the data from Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County suggest.

Those projections also assumed "no intervention," referring not just to lockdowns but also to narrower regulations as well as voluntary precautions such as hand washing, using face masks, limiting social interactions, avoiding crowds, and working from home. It was never realistic to imagine that Americans would simply carry on as usual in the face of the COVID-19 epidemic...

[daniel1212]

In contrast with the current crude case fatality rate of about 4.5 percent, Ferrer said, the study suggests that 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of people infected by the virus will die, which would make COVID-19 only somewhat more deadly than the seasonal flu...

This is not the argument, for using an average flu season avoids such cases as 100,000 or more flu deaths in America, and that the the response to such was not proportionate in comparison to that of Covid.

Related:

1 in 5 New York City Residents Already Infected With CCP Virus, Antibody Testing Shows 4/23/2020, 1:46:22 PM · by SeekAndFind · 54 replies Epoch Times ^ | 04/23/2020 | Zachary Steiber Preliminary results from antibody testing in New York state found a 13.9 percent infection rate, officials announced Thursday.

The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation

[Steely Tom]

COVID-19 response is informed by Donald Trump’s lethality to the deep-state agenda.

[ManHunter]

It would, assuming, that is, that the coronavirus is really the issue - and we know that it isn’t.

[bwest]

When did the word “inform” start to be used as a synonym for “influence”?

[Rurudyne]

Democrats will take another depression over a second Trump term.

[a fool in paradise]

The WHO has changed their policies on such matters

Didn’t use to be like this.

Bill Gates is a major contributor these days and he pushes pandemic panic

[heartwood]

NYC 11,000 deaths / 1,800,000 infected = 0.6% death rate.

[BenLurkin]

One in one hundred die, and it is known who is most at risk.

Perhaps it is they who should be quarantined?

[billyboy15]

“One in one hundred die, and it is known who is most at risk.”

One in 100 is 1%. I believe the rate is .1% which is far, far less.

And yes it is the 65 and over with current health issues who should be told to self quarantine.

[yetidog]

I think they mean different things like “informing judgment” does not mean influencing it, rather having sufficient info to make a judgment. If you are noting the words overuse, I agree.

[FewsOrange]

“only somewhat more deadly than the seasonal flu”

In NYC the peak daily death rate from Covid was about 500/day. The usual daily death rate in NYC in April is around 150. So Covid deaths are double all other cause put together. That is not something that is only somewhat more deadly than the seasonal flu.

[BenLurkin]

Saw .9% on another thread. Based on the NYC infected versus fatal numbers.

Somebody else did the calculation. It’s not I’m just too lazy to do the math. I’m also too stupid.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

“The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.

In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.

Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation#.XqGrRahFRYo.twitter

[KC_Lion]

Why wouldn’t they?

During The Great Depression is the point in History when the Progressives had near total control of this country.

[Amendment10]

"Evidence that the virus is much less deadly than people [??? emphasis added] feared weakens the case for maintaining lockdowns...."

Since this in an “Orange Man Bad” election year, desperate Democrats and likewise corrupt media are deliberately confusing COVID-19 statistics to spook voters to get PDJT out of Oval Office imo.

Dr. Fauci had said on WH press briefing that if we don’t respond to limit spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus, models indicated that up to 2.2 million people might die.

But since people are not being taught basic and science in the schools, they unsurprisingly don’t seem to understand that since we responded with quarantine, less people than maximum predicted will die.

And we’ll never know how many people might have died if we didn’t do anything, possibly even more than 2.2 million if models were wrong imo, especially with respect to limited medical services.

Insights welcome.

Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government Democrats and RINOs home in November!

Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping COVID-19 will effectively give fast-working Trump a third term in office imo.

MAGA, also KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)

[daniel1212]

When did the word “inform” start to be used as a synonym for “influence”?

Most likely with liberals in order to avoid the negative connotation of influence as being opposed to objectivity, which they imagine they have. However, both words basically go together, for to be informed about the facts of a case is to influence your judgment in it. Yet we can be influenced by other means than being informed about facts. But liberals cannot never be accused of bias, no matter how well informed we are of such.

[BlackAdderess]

It seems to have a cumulative effect, lots of exposure leads to people’s immune systems getting overwhelmed. You catch the flu, it’s like being pregnant, you either are or aren’t. You catch Covid-19 and the analogy would be like adding another baby to your belly with every exposure. So for most people it won’t kill you, but there are people, like doctors, nurses, who are expensive to educate and have an IQ requirement that not everyone has, that are at an increased risk.

What I would love to see is the U.S. going to a universal vaccination against TB this summer, since that would reduce our healthcare costs for ailments that are driving up costs for everyone. The TB vaccine seems to be good for a lot more than TB.

[daniel1212]

"Evidence that the virus is much less deadly than people [??? emphasis added] feared weakens the case for maintaining lockdowns...."

Missing the word "had" in "people feared," if grammar policing must be practiced.

And we’ll never know how many people might have died if we didn’t do anything, possibly even more than 2.2 million if models were wrong imo, especially with respect to limited medical services.

Rather, the spike would have been faster and likely the decrease as well.

[daniel1212]

And consider the logic:

Since the number of infections in Los Angeles County is much higher than the official numbers indicate, Ferrer told reporters, the risk of transmission is higher than expected, which reinforces the case for aggressive control measures, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders. At the same time, she said, the fact that 95 percent or so of the county's adult population remains uninfected shows those measures are working.

Meaning testing 863 adults means that 95 percent or so of the county's adult population remains uninfected, but despite aggressive control measures the est. "number of adults in the county who had been infected by the virus was roughly 40 times the number of confirmed cases at the time," yet hardly any need hospital care or suffer death, yet aggressive control measures are warranted.

The good thing is that we can reduce deaths in the near future even more by banning (among other things) driving, all social interaction, and breathing without a N95 mask or eating with hands, or raising them above your shoulders, and walking upright in homes. Etc.

But of course, if you want to have some freedom and more of a earthly life then you need to consider costs vs, benefits, which makes the "aggressive control measures, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders" for all ages unjustifiable.

[bwest]

You’re correct, of course, but “being informed about the facts” is different than “the facts informing a decision.” In the former, a source other than the fact itself is the subject. In the latter, the fact itself is the subject. That’s the usage that I’ve seen increasingly more often lately.

Sorry—I get off on language tangents (including, on review, double entendres like this one). Don’t get me started on “its” vs. “it’s”.