Message Boards Message Boards

Miscellaneous

Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiology

Toggle
Daniel,

Where do fall in the spectrum of the predicted death rate from Covid 19?  I am seeing varying predictions from epidemiologists from low-high 0.03 to 0.06 death rate for some to 0.09 to 2% for others.  What do you think will be the overall infection rate and how long do you think it will take this first wave of infection to roll through?   
Thanks for any response!!

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/27/20 6:58 PM as a reply to This very moment.
RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/27/20 7:21 PM as a reply to This very moment.
Hello,

Not Daniel, but I just stumbled upon this study, which is pretty complicated but seems legit :  https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

From what I gather they are saying that mitigation measures would mean way too many deaths (at the very least over 1 million in the US).

The other option they explore is to inforce a very long harsh quarantine period (this is the direction we have taken in the US and France, but this particular study says it should be in place for at least 5 months). But that would definitely guarantee that the same global problem will occur this winter. A quote : "The more successful a strategy is at temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity"

So, what they are suggesting is that the only viable option is to (1) quarantine massively - Check - (2) Keep these measures in place for long periods of time, which will repeat several times, covering the majority (two thirds minimum) of a time window of 18 months, which they are hypothesizing is how long it will take for a vaccine to be created.

From the discussion of their models :

Perhaps our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity limits of the UK and US healthcare systems being exceeded many times over. In the most effective mitigation strategy examined, which leads to a single, relatively short epidemic (case isolation, household quarantine and social distancing of the elderly), the surge limits for both general ward and ICU beds would be exceeded by at least 8-fold under the more optimistic scenario for critical care requirements that we examined. In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US. In the UK, this conclusion has only been reached in the last few days, with the refinement of estimates of likely ICU demand due to COVID-19 based on experience in Italy and the UK (previous planning estimates assumed half the demand now estimated) and with the NHS providing increasing certainty around the limits of hospital surge capacity.

We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time. [This is what most countries are doing.] The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound. Many countries have adopted such measures already, but even those countries at an earlier stage of their epidemic (such as the UK) will need to do so imminently. Our analysis informs the evaluation of both the nature of the measures required to suppress COVID19 and the likely duration that these measures will need to be in place. Results in this paper have informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in the last weeks. However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.

From the summary :

The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound. Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced.

The thing is, can you imagine the impact on finance and economy if this lasts for 18 months ? It's gonna be much much worse than what the media are saying.

You can read this guy's more thorough interpretation of that study, but  probably biased in its conclusions/predictions (MIT tech review) : https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615370/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/?truid=09628e5751032d94e96002088cb0f3cd&utm_source=the_download&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_download.unpaid.engagement&utm_content=03-18-2020

I disagree with his notion that this is the start of a new "pandemic lifestyle" - where basically we tip into a dystopic world of deep surveillance which will aim at tracking and isolating suspect cases through technology...

But I agree on the idea that it's probably a tipping point ... My intuition is that this might well be one of the big triggers that people who study collapse have been warning about. You've heard of the World3 model from the Limits to growth in a finite world book ? This is surprising in its form, but could be in line with predictions...

Party's over ! Perhaps this is the time to start working on our gardens emoticonemoticon I am, anyways... 

I wonder how many people will achieve stream-entry during that quarantine ... :p :p

Best wishes to all, take care.

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/30/20 8:37 AM as a reply to This very moment.
You'll likely be interested in the interview that just went live with Steve James (Guru Viking)

https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/19736907

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85nN5V4KL2k

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/30/20 10:27 AM as a reply to Lewis James.
Just listening now, awesome start. Love the Russian Roulette analogy! Just one comment on the 4% death rate (1 bullet in 20 rounds). Mostly it seems that those who are being tested already have symptoms, so that 4% death rate (10% in Italy) has a denominator which is obviously smaller than the total population. Iceland has been doing more random tests and finds around 10% infected. On that basis you could crudely estimate 10% * 4% = 0.4% as the probability of death for an asymptomatic individual. I'm not trying to downplay the risk, that's still 1.2mm Americans, so we should all stay isolated as much as possible. Hopefully with preventative measures we can "get away with" something more like 100,000 deaths which seems somewhat realistic/attainable.

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/30/20 11:10 AM as a reply to agnostic.
The best estimates I've seen of the death rate for COVID-19 after testing positive, is around 0.7%. You're right - this "mortality rate" number has to factor in all the un-tested folks who are actually positive, i.e.; infected.

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/30/20 11:48 AM as a reply to agnostic.
Highly disagree, first of all there are unreported deaths as Well, a single unreported deaths could cancel more than one hundred unreported cases. Those statistics with 4 percent death rate are flawed as Well since It takes time to die, in the following months we will see the death rate ramping Up.. the real death rate of around 4 percent IS a fair estomation, could be higher... We already Saw Sars was around 3 percent while on process and ended above 10 percent.

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/30/20 1:00 PM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/30/20 1:31 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
They still dont adress the unreported death stuff, They also dont adress the fact that this IS an ongoing pandemic and the 4 percent death rate Will end Closer to 10 percent when all deaths takes toll. There IS also the factor that there are varios strains of the virus. I recommend to avoid mainstream media that stills takes china data at face value,.

RE: Asking Daniel for his hot take on Covid-19 given that his M.Epidemiolog
Answer
3/30/20 1:32 PM as a reply to Jake Frankfurt Middenhall.
I don't want to argue about this - it's too depressing and I'm thinking throwing out a bunch of what about this, what about that kind of posts is counter-productive. I'm sorry I weighed in.