Comment by sdffdsfdsfsddsf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sdffdsfdsfsddsf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

sdffdsfdsfsddsf

The basis is studies of closed communities. Here in Germany there was a study of a whole village (testing everyone), that found a death rate of 0.37%. Other interesting data sets may be Diamond Princess cruise ship, Theodore Roosevelt carrier, or Health Care Workers.

So saying there is "no basis" is a bit rich. There may still be uncertainty.

Edit: this (just googled) article cites Diamong Princess to lead to an estimate of 0.5% death rate https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-dia... (the percentage of deaths on the DP was higher, but the passengers were also comparatively old on average).

Edit 2: lol for the downvote. What the fuck?

Edit 3: about the study in Germany https://www.theblaze.com/news/german-study-shows-coronavirus... (don't know "The Blaze", but if you care, you can google for better sources - google for "Streeck").

Edit 4: Theodore Roosevelt carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_U...

Death rates change based on how well the healthcare system can keep up. The Diamond Princess was best case in that sense, so the floor of the death rate is about 0.5% if your somewhere with great medical care and f cases. As for the German study:

> About 1,000 people participated in the study by way of questionnaires, throat swabs, and blood tests to detect the presence of COVID-19 antibodies. These interim results are based on data from about 500 people.

So only a sample size of 500 plus not accounting for other local factors there, like being a small village.

"Death rates change based on how well the healthcare system can keep up."

Not really, actually. At least I haven't seen a number of "people who died because they couldn't receive care" - do you have one? It seems possible that once health care systems are overwhelmed, more people die. But how often, if ever in this pandemic, has that point been reached? I don't think that often - there is no good treatment anyway.

"only a sample size of 500"

It's science. 500 can be a lot, or few. It was a sound and thorough study by acknowledged scientists.

> At least I haven't seen a number of "people who died because they couldn't receive care" - do you have one?

No, that's impossible to provide between people dying at home because hospitals are full and the general chaos of those situations. And then there's the big difference between quality of care in various countries, death rates of just about everything will be much higher in Mozambique than they will be in Sweden, it's nonsensical to think that quality of medical care will not have an effect.

> It seems possible that once health care systems are overwhelmed, more people die. But how often, if ever in this pandemic, has that point been reached?

Many times in many countries, look at the national totals somewhere like here (https://covid19info.live/), the trend is nearly always that more cases at once translate to much higher death rates. Partly due to not knowing the true number of infections, but mostly due to the availability of medical care.

"No, that's impossible to provide between people dying at home because hospitals are full and the general chaos of those situations."

That's another claim you make, that you should be able to support. Have people been denied hospital care and therefore died at home?

"the trend is nearly always that more cases at once translate to much higher death rates"

Could have any number of explanations, like maybe infected old people homes.

"it's nonsensical to think that quality of medical care will not have an effect."

Again - are there cases of people dying because they couldn't receive care in the US, and how many?

"but mostly due to the availability of medical care."

Again, can you give any examples of people dying because they couldn't receive care? Especially in the US. And show that it is a significant number of people?

Again, the current worldwide figure is 7%, with two thirds of the known cases still pending.

Even if absolutely 0 of the pending cases turn into deaths, and the true percentage of cases that are undetected is the full 50% that has been mentioned recently, that still puts us well above 3%.

Arithmetic: 7 in 100 right now. Add 0 to deaths, resolve all open cases and discover double the known case count: 7 in 200, 3.5%

---

For the surveys you mentioned. The Roosevelt still has active cases. The Princess likewise did at the time that article was written. You're citing that 0.5% figure incorrectly: that's a projection from the Diamond Princess onto China. I found a different source for the German survey -- that link isn't working for some reason. The same applies there.

Most importantly, these surveys are not representative of the global population. See above.

The recent results that have shown 50% asymptomatic cases are not conclusive yet, because it's too soon to say that all of those people will never have symptoms.

I would be ecstatic if I was wrong; I would love it if the upper estimate for asymptomatic cases was correct, and we had far fewer deaths than anyone's expecting. But it's just not in the numbers right now.

"Again, the current worldwide figure is 7%, with two thirds of the known cases still pending."

No. You can not simply calculate the death rate by dividing known deaths by known cases. Those numbers depend on who got tested and on how deaths are being counted, which also varies greatly from country to country. For starters, people who have severe symptoms are more likely to show up at hospitals and get tested. That introduces a huge bias already.

"You're citing that 0.5% figure incorrectly"

No I didn't, read what I wrote. And ALL numbers are projections. Even your calculation is a projection. Your calculation is an extraordinarily simplistic projection. Scientists hopefully make better projections, because they account for more influencing factors.

"The recent results that have shown 50% asymptomatic cases are not conclusive yet, because it's too soon to say that all of those people will never have symptoms"

What makes you so sure? It seems possible to make an estimate of when somebody got infected, especially in those studies of closed communities. After two weeks or so (scientists would determine a more prices number), it would be reasonable to assume they won't develop symptoms.

There are a lot of people on HN (and the internet at large) who view any statement adjusting-downward death rates as "COVID denialism", and will reflexively downvote attempts to correct in that direction.

In the most charitable reading, you could view them akin to the CDC and masks, trying to keep the public slightly misinformed for the greater good (preserve mask supplies for hospitals). In the least charitable reading, there are a lot of depressed and angry people on the internet, who want to believe that this disease is truly civilization-ending, and attack any opposing narrative.

Either way, I would not take it personally, or as a judgement on your actual quoted facts.

Another interpretation is that a lot of people on the internet (HN, reddit) have actually seen net improvements to their life from the lockdown.

For the introverted tech worker that prefers to work from home, the quarantine hasn't really negatively impacted their routine that much, and it might have actually lifted any peer pressure to go out and socialize with friends/co-workers/family.

For someone in that situation, there's not much of a benefit to advocate for reopening, and the deadlier the virus seems, the longer the lockdown will continue.

I really hope you're wrong, because that would be implying that HNers are selfish assholes who don't care a dime about the rest of their community.

While I personally am comfortable working from home and my company is doing well, I'm sad that I couldn't visit my parents and my grandmother for Easter. And it particularly frustrates me that my grandmother has to sit at home and practice social distancing, where she cannot do anything much besides sitting in her chair and watching TV all day. (She doesn't have or want a smart device, and her chronic back pain keeps her from engaging in most other home activities.) And that's before I consider the people around me whose lifelihoods have been impacted or obliterated by the shutdown, or the essential workers who often have to work without adequate PPE.

I don't mean to imply that it's the majority of people here. People are complex and HNers aren't a monolithic group. But I do think the general pro-lockdown sentiment wouldn't be nearly as strong if the majority of posters were in the service or retail industry.

That's not to say people here are selfish, only that it's easier to advocate for safety when you yourself are in a position of relative stability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com