A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data

[TBoneTX 47,536]

This thoughtful analysis, by a legitimate scholar, is worth considering.

Quote

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data
by John P.A. Ioannidis / March 17, 2020

The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic.  But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.

At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected.  Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact.

Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries.  If the pandemic dissipates - either on its own or because of these measures - short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable.  How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated?  How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm? [...]

 

Continues here: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

[90DayFinancier 910]

55 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

This thoughtful analysis, by a legitimate scholar, is worth considering.

 

Why do we lack 

"we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected.'?

could it be because our test for covid- rank below 80% of other nations?

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

    He brings up good points about the potential severity of existing strains of Coronavirus and how severe seasonal flu can be. He tends to gloss over the fact that most people have been infected by these strains before and have at least some level of immunity. The other strains of Coronavirus likely also had higher mortality rates when first introduced into human populations. This one could infect everyone all at once if we don't take measures to prevent that. 

 

  He is right that we don't know if we are missing the number of cases by a factor of 3 or by 300, which significantly changes the outlook and the amount of time it will take to get past this. If it goes away quickly that is great. It doesn't change the fact that hospitals are already nearing capacity in some parts of the US right now. Whether 80% or 88% or 99% of people have mild symptoms, the ones with severe symptoms are overwhelming the health care system and we have to slow it down.

 

  I would say we definitely are starting to react to a worst case scenario. That's because it looks like we might get one. Now, if we get a better scenario, and transmission rates drop, then great - it will be over quicker. The alternative - if we react like this will go away by itself? Well we tried that and it doesn't. We already have the answer to what happens if you don't act quickly or aggressively enough. Now hopefully we don't become Italy (or worse), where many people who could have survived with treatment are dying because they won't get it. 

 

   

 

 

 

   

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   Sort of related to this topic, this analysis was from a guy who did some of the original number crunching and predicted when infection rates in China would stabilize. An interesting point he suggests is that the way transmission rates drop off are suggestive that some people may have already had a natural immunity to the virus. Researchers have raised the possibility of cross reactivity due to exposure to existing strains but I haven't really seen much follow up with that hypothesis. He does reiterate the need to continue social distancing and restriction measures, but I though it was a very logical analysis and does add some hope that maybe these measures won't need to last as long as the "worst case" scenarios. 

 

  https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3800632,00.html 

[Dashinka 25,887]

Why do they call it social distancing and not physical distancing?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Why do they call it social distancing and not physical distancing?

 

   They both mean the same. Probably someone just thought of "social" first and it stuck.

[Dashinka 25,887]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   They both mean the same. Probably someone just thought of "social" first and it stuck.

In my mind, you can still be social with someone while keeping your distance.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

In my mind, you can still be social with someone while keeping your distance.

 

  I agree, but I think we're stuck with that term. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Why do they call it social distancing and not physical distancing?

If you walked into the room and stood 6 foot away and wouldn't shake my hand...I would want to know what had changed in society.

[Dashinka 25,887]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

If you walked into the room and stood 6 foot away and wouldn't shake my hand...I would want to know what had changed in society.

Depends on which country you are in.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

 

Just like the flu

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 

[TBoneTX 47,536]

Mark Levin read much of Prof. Ioannidis' piece on his show on Friday and commented on its perspective.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

23 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Just like the flu

It may indeed become that bad, one day soon.  For now?  Not so much.  You might want to go back to the top and read the article in the OP.

 

Nearly 13,000 dead from covid.  What's the flu up to this season?

Edited March 21, 2020 by Voice of Reason