Posted on 03/29/2020 5:44:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
You can run around preaching that the sky is falling, or you can look at the numbers we already have and make intelligent forecasts.
Joining their colleague John Ioannidis in throwing cold water on coronavirus conventional wisdom, professors at the Stanford University School of Medicine warn that the apocalyptic figures thrown around for COVID-19 in America “could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.”
Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya write in The Wall Street Journal that we are focused on the wrong statistic: deaths from identified cases. Because of “selection bias in testing” and limited data on the extent of that bias, the possible fatality range is too great to be meaningful.
They find it “plausible but likely” from available figures that the more useful statistic – the infection rate – is “orders of magnitude larger” than thought, meaning deaths following infection are quite low, relatively speaking.
If testing of evacuees from Wuhan matches the infection rate of “greater Wuhan,” a population of 20 million, then the infection rate was “about 30-fold more” than reported cases, meaning a fatality rate “at least 10-fold lower” than estimates.
An Italian town of 3,300 that got fully tested showed a “prevalence rate” of 2.7 percent, which extrapolated to its province would mean 26,000 infections compared to 198 identified cases. Italy’s fatality rate could actually be closed to 0.06 percent, Bendavid and Bhattacharya say.
Based on the admittedly unrepresentative test sample of NBA players, where player contact could have made the infection rate higher, the “lower-bound assumptions” extended to cities with NBA teams would mean an infection rate 72-fold higher than identified cases across the U.S.
MORE: Stanford epidemiologist warns crackdown is based on bad data
Our panic stems from two misleading factors. Tests don’t catch people who recovered from infections, and they were “typically reserved for the severely ill” until recently:
Together, these facts imply that the confirmed cases are likely orders of magnitude less than the true number of infections. Epidemiological modelers haven’t adequately adapted their estimates to account for these factors. …
An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 [based on tens of thousands of travelers from Wuhan in December] implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected. As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that’s a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism.
One-tenth the flu mortality rate.
We’ve been making extreme decisions based on incomplete and misleading data, as Ioannidis says, and his colleagues Bendavid and Bhattacharya emphasize the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000-40,000 and two million.
Antibody testing needs to be ramped up to provide more useful data than the highly misleading rate based on identified (known sick) cases:
If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then measures focused on older populations and hospitals are sensible. Elective procedures will need to be rescheduled. Hospital resources will need to be reallocated to care for critically ill patients. Triage will need to improve. And policy makers will need to focus on reducing risks for older adults and people with underlying medical conditions.
We need to “evaluate the empirical basis” of the lockdown strategy embraced by the nation’s mayors and governors, because it could be imposing entirely avoidable costs on “the economy, community and individual mental and physical health.”
If the virus was more contagious and deadlier than the flu, then wouldn’t there be more deaths from covid than the flu? Duh...
Ok, if we could just be more patient....
Trouble is the flunatics lie every day. Not sure most of us wanna wait until the lies come true.
That may be the case but I do believe the left-wing doctors have taken over the presidency.
No, Trump is firmly in control of the Presidency. He’s just giving the experts all the rope they want. FWIW those doctors didn’t create the hype behind this. To some extent they are caught in the same wave of hysteria that Trump is.
I agree but the docs should know better. if they succumbed to the hysteria they are not living up to their oath.
You don’t try to swim against the wave as it’s coming in you wait and use its momentum when it goes out ... if you want to go the other direction.
If Trump defied the tide on this he would have already been impeached. The doctors have to deal with that reality as well because that’s the reality of it and they are public officials. Trump’s employees.
This virus is also an unknown and there are very good reasons to consider it an emergency apart from the media-generated panic. That is also part of this reality and a part of both Trump’s duty and the duty of the doctors.
Look, CoVid-19 is filling ICU’s with highly contagious patients who are infecting, and sometimes killing, many caregivers (including even EMT’s). Can you honestly say that the same thing, only worse, routinely happens every year due to influenza? Seriously?
No, the virus probably won’t kill as many people in the U.S. this year as the flu, but maybe only because massive resources have been devoted to figuring out how to stop it or slow it down and render it less deadly. Hopefully, that is now happening, because if it doesn’t we will lose a more doctors and nurses as the virus hits one city after another.
And I think President Trump realizes that the pure panic, put out and harped on, took over sanity and caused serious damage that was impossible to halt due to sheer inertia.....most of us notice that it’s now the hard leftists that are insisting things stay shut down and making a possible treatment illegal to try.
I wish I didn’t have to crush this stupid WSJ article multiple times every day. The authors should have their licenses revoked.
This was not a research study, it was an editorial in a newspaper. The authors think it is rational to extrapolate the incidence of the Covid19 virus in Vo, Padua, Italy, population about 3,000, to the entire province of Padua, Italy, population 990,000. They do not mention that the reason the entire population of Vo was tested is because that is the town where the FIRST PERSON DIED IN ITALY from the disease. You could extrapolate the .9% infection rate of Vo to Greenland and find a theoretical mortality rate of zero since no one has died in Greenland of the disease. It is unreasonable to expect that the incidence of the disease in the “hotspot” where the first person died is not much higher than in areas where no one has died.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.