Hacker News Reader

Comment by SketchySeaBeast | Hacker News Reader

That feels a bit like moving the goal post - you asked where the deaths were, and based upon the graph they are coming.

When you say a stat like that you need to caveat it - is that 0.04% of the total population? Case fatality? Infection fatality?

It's also not looking forward - today's total values aren't particularly useful when we can obviously see that the situation has been continually evolving.

View on HN

0.04% of the total population 145k out of 340 million. We can also see from Sweeden that the death rate are declining and that without lockdown.

But that number is nonsensical in determining what actions we should take - it only has some questionable value if we look at it after the whole thing is over and the virus is long gone. Not everyone in America has been exposed to this virus, and many of those who have been exposed haven't run the full course of the disease. It's as useful as saying that in August of last year no one was infected and so it clearly would never kill anyone.

ok the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65%. Which is low. yes the number are changing but it quickly converging as times goes. Lockdown is not free, its not without harm.

> the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65%

Do you have a CDC page giving that number please?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

You probably need to include information about how uncertain that number is.

> New data on COVID-19 are available daily, yet information about the biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 remain limited, and uncertainty remains around nearly all parameter values. [...]

> Many uncertainties remain. [...] Observed parameter values may also change over time (e.g., the percentage of transmission occurring prior to symptom onset will be influenced by how quickly and effectively both symptomatic people and the contacts of known cases are quarantined).

> The parameters in the scenarios:

> Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning.

> Are NOT predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19.

> Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions.

But the stats are converging upwards, and it's dishonest to throw an unrelated number out there like it's a useful fact. In May they suggested a 0.4% IFR [1] so conditions and fatality estimates have gotten worse. That's an extra million citizens dead if everyone gets it.

> Lockdown is not free, its not without harm.

Do you believe this gives you lee-way to diminish and share bad facts to bolster your claim?

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estima... <- can't find the original source due to the link being updated on the CDC site.

so in may it was 0.4 and now its 0.65 is worse but still very low. the number is of course evolving but unlikely to widely different than that.

>Do you believe this gives you lee-way to diminish and share bad facts to bolster your claim?

What bad facts ?

> so in may it was 0.4 and now its 0.65 is worse but still very low. the number is of course evolving but unlikely to widely different than that.

As I said before, that's a difference in a million potential deaths in the United States.

> What bad facts ?

You presented the death rate of the whole of the united states as being somehow indicative of the situation, when you were aware that that's an order of magnitude decrease from the projections for the United States. In addition you presented that 0.04% as somehow in agreement with the estimates " Inline with what has been estimated by most research publication."

>As I said before, that's a difference in a million potential deaths in the United States.

So? In the larger scale is not a big number and doesn't justify the lockdown https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...

"full lockdowns and widespread testing were not associated with reduced COVID-19 mortality"

>. In addition you presented that 0.04% as somehow in agreement with the estimates

Yes the estimates 0.65, the number right now is 0.04, its a lot better, its good news.

You're celebrating a number that means nothing. It's saying "we only had 50 casualties!" the first day of world war 2 and assuming that's a victory and indicative of how the rest will go.

The U.S. has already tallied 145K deaths. It's not clear what % of the population has been infected but it's surely much less than 100%. So clearly 0.04% can't be the correct overall death rate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com