Replies

You're confusing two things: one of them is the absolute risk (which you can do apples-to-apples on, when final fatality counts and prevalence are known, after the fact); the other is potential risk -- as in, "we have a clue what percentage of infected people this kills; how spazzed do we have to get in case it spreads"...when the infection rate is not yet known.

And, yes, I agree nailing down the rate of propagation is easier said than done.

In this case we have

a fluid situation

people dying from *likely* sequelae (pneumonia) but either with no testing kits, or no pathognomonic symptoms (e.g. petechiae, for some hemorrhagic fever or other)

a government with both a propensity to lie and reason to downplay.

So, you take your guess...

But the other thing we can do, is to observe the *actions* of the government.

And in this case, they're not lying, sweeping it under the rug, pretending nothing is wrong, and hoping everyone else believes the lie.

They're running around with their hair on fire, trying to keep people from talking about it, and hoping it gets better on its own.

And that part, is what convinces me, to consider higher numbers for the lethality and R0 values.

Thanks for fleshing out your thinking; you do have a systematically sound approach...but as you point out, the collection has to be systematic for that kind of thing to work.

Right now we're still in the Wild, Wild West phase of things...

THIS is why I decloaked after lurking for 13 years...for a good, healthy exchange of ideas. Thank you.

I absolutely agree that my ex post analysis of prior pandemics may not be too helpful in a Wild West situations where an ex ante assessment may be preferable. The 2008 recession was accompanied by heretofore unseen levels of mortgage defaults - rear-view mirrors are not helpful when traveling in drive. So I admit that if the virus in China turns out to be more contagious but as deadly as Ebola, that's bad.

I also love the way you clearly, cogently laid out how the Chinese govt is responding. I'm with you.

I don't think either of us trust their government. Where we disagree slightly, is whether we watching an Academy Award-winning performance intended to divert attention from something else (maybe their slowing economy) or a raw and truthful but scared sh1tl3ss government response.

I don't think we disagree on humanity's potential to overshoot on hysteria. My Ebola analysis was intended to serve as a sober backtest of the then potential (and, in retrospect, inflated) risk assessment

So we will agree to disagree on what we think is REALLY happening. We can agree that this is something worth watching. And I will say I hope I'm right but not out of pride but because I don't like seeing people die in this manner.

Thanks for listening.