
My Covid-19 Story in Brooklyn - munirusman
https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/fayko1/my_covid19_story_brooklyn/
======
soared
> This is a tough one. I'm an attending physician.

> Guidelines are there for a reason. As much as I despise our Commander in
> Chief, I don't think the CDC is compromised. Fear doesn't rank over
> guidelines, but I understand the situation. No one wants to be the doctor
> that discharges patient zero.

> Personally, I'd admit you for fever of unknown origin for the time being and
> monitor you for any signs of sepsis. If everything looks good from an
> observation stand point, I'd discharge you with strict droplet precautions
> until the fever subsides.

> I think your doctor did the right thing given the context.

Given the above comment, most replies here are arguing against CDC regulation
saying it is too stringent. Its very helpful to understand comments in this
lens, rather than that the CDC is just under-testing for unknown reasons.

~~~
voidmain
The guidelines for testing were so absurdly stringent because there was almost
no testing capacity in the US, despite their being hundreds of labs with RTPCR
equipment, because the CDC screwed up their test kits and the FDA used
emergency powers to prohibit labs from developing their own tests, and forbids
the creation of commercial test kits and the importation of foreign ones.
Three weeks after CDC (after an already unconscionable delay) shipped the non
working tests, they have "fixed" this situation by permitting labs to use the
2 of the 3 primers in the original test that mostly work. So as of yesterday
we are starting to have the ability to actually test, and the criteria are
being loosened.

~~~
alexandercrohde
>> forbids the creation of commercial test kits and the importation of foreign
ones

I was wondering about this... Very hard to justify that in my opinion.

~~~
tim333
Seems pretty mucked up.

------
nickjj
Hmm, this is bad. A ton of people from NYC / Brooklyn also commute back to the
east end of Long Island for weekends so this has a potential to spread pretty
quickly.

I don't keep up with the news at all but recently I started reading some
articles from major news outlets just for more info about this virus. It's
mind boggling at how different each channel's reporting is (I'm in the US).

I was at the store this morning and they had a TV playing. One channel down
played it like it's nothing and it's even "technically" less potent than the
regular flu because they compared yearly flu deaths to covid-19's deaths and
played it off like "we're no where near the number of deaths that the flu has
killed this year!" and then all of the surrounding anchors all agreed with the
spokesperson they had on, etc.

Others make it out to be 1 notch away from an apocalyptic event.

So I guess this is really what "fake news" is? I don't get it. You can get a
life time of prison for ordering someone to kill someone else but somehow it's
ok to potentially gamble with the entire human population by not giving
accurate information about a virus that's killing people.

~~~
eveningcoffee
I just saw a virologist give out the flu argument in addition to presenting
the naive mortality rate and making an intentional arithmetic mistake
(100-3.5=97, perhaps 96.5 does not feel such a big number anymore).

I would recommend to study this site
[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)
if you want to be more informed.

~~~
heartbeats
Rounding up .5 is considered proper form.

~~~
sp332
I agree. If you only have two significant digits to work with, pretending to
have more precision is a different kind of dishonesty.

~~~
SamReidHughes
100 - (3.5 +/\- epsilon) is 96.5 +/\- epsilon.

------
sschueller
The Swiss government issued the following guidelines [1] to prevent further
spread of the virus. Masks are considered useless unless you are infected.

\- Wash your hands thoroughly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvcvvRp3lsY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvcvvRp3lsY)

\- Cough and sneeze into a paper tissue/handerchief or the crook of your arm.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3_rFPtQgKE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3_rFPtQgKE)

\- If you experience shortness of breath, have a cough or fever: • Stay at
home. • Contact a doctor immediately by phone or call the coronavirus
infoline. • Avoid contact with those around you. • Do not go directly to the
doctor or to a hospital emergency room.

[1]
[https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-...](https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-
epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov.html)

~~~
endorphone
_Masks are considered useless unless you are infected._

This is a bizarre claim that can be countered against the reality that every
front-line worker is equipped with a mask.

EDIT: Almost immediately I dropped to -2. Bizarre. Again, every health agency
the world over equips health workers who deal with potential COVID-19 with
N95+ masks. For some reason people desperately want to clutch onto the notion
that it's useless because otherwise..uncomfortable and uncool mask, right?
Another poster mentioned that the source didn't even state that about masks,
but instead about surgical masks which is a tiny subset.

-Masks prevent aerosolized matter (e.g. a sneeze) from getting at mucous membranes (where it needs to get to yield an infection).

-Masks prevent you from touching your hands to the vulnerable areas of your face. It is effectively a check. So when you touch that door handle leaving the subway station it's far less likely you'll transfer to your mouth or nose, and we naturally touch our face thousands of times a day. Ideally one would have a mental process they follow where you clean thoroughly before taking it off.

Those alone seem like an absolutely _enormous_ win for masks.

[https://time.com/5785223/medical-masks-coronavirus-
covid-19/](https://time.com/5785223/medical-masks-coronavirus-covid-19/)

[https://www.livescience.com/respirators-prevent-
coronavirus-...](https://www.livescience.com/respirators-prevent-coronavirus-
infection-study.html)

I'm certainly not at the point where I'm going to wear a mask in public, but
the whole "Hurrr masks don't work at all" seems like either disinformation
(e.g. stop buying all the masks because we want them), or people trying to
comfort themselves in some bizarre way. Every bit of evidence says otherwise.

The moderation through this is absolutely cartoonish and ignorant.

~~~
obituary_latte
Those paper masks do little if anything to help the wearer from taking in
anything. They do not filter the air—they are far too porous and loose-fitting
to filter. They do help prevent the wearer from spreading their germs and
touching nose/mouth as you said, but they are not an effective air filtration
device.

~~~
endorphone
As mentioned by others, _surgical_ masks don't filter, but N95 masks
absolutely do and are what health care workers are being equipped with.

N95 masks just look like cheap little paper things that you stick on your
face.

~~~
obituary_latte
No they don’t. N95 are solid looking and sometimes have a plastic square
housing on the front [0] and surgical masks are paper and pleated [1]

[0]
[https://images.app.goo.gl/RZAgMSssThGJQrnf6](https://images.app.goo.gl/RZAgMSssThGJQrnf6)

[1]
[https://images.app.goo.gl/fRW2dmSxUo1Lm1Dh8](https://images.app.goo.gl/fRW2dmSxUo1Lm1Dh8)

~~~
endorphone
Yes, yes they do. I can find a million pictures of N95 masks that _look_ just
like a cheap little paper mask (not like surgical masks -- not rectangular.
Just cheap and like it's made of paper similar to a paper filter).

[https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-rxcy1k/products/11668/images...](https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-rxcy1k/products/11668/images/74845/1D-W795-800x533__72074.1581616670.1280.1280.jpg?c=2)

~~~
obituary_latte
Now you seem to be just arguing for arguments sake or you’re the kind of
person who can’t ever admit to making a mistake or being wrong.

Your linked image in no way objectively looks “just like” cheap square pleated
surgical masks.
[https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/LyoAAOSwMTFeMbmh/s-l300.png](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/LyoAAOSwMTFeMbmh/s-l300.png)

------
Leary
One of the key findings coming out of China is that CT scans can outperform
reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) lab tests in
diagnosing the Coronavirus[1].

[1][https://www.itnonline.com/content/ct-provides-best-
diagnosis...](https://www.itnonline.com/content/ct-provides-best-diagnosis-
novel-coronavirus-covid-19)

If the CDC's current tests are flawed or too few, then the CDC should provide
guidelines to health providers to quickly diagnose potential patients using CT
scans.

~~~
mnm1
A CT scan is fairly standard procedure for diagnosing many things. Why do
doctors and hospitals need CDC permission to use it to test? This seems like a
bad movie where the CDC is not doing much due to political pressure. Why can't
doctors act in their patients' best interest on their own?

~~~
semi-extrinsic
A CT has a pretty high radiation dose. As far as I understand, for every 2000
people given a chest CT we expect 1 person to get a fatal form of cancer due
to the CT.

Compared to the natural incidence of getting a fatal cancer in your lifetime
(about 400 in 2000), this is a very low. And for serious conditions, a CT can
literally be a life saver.

But if you apply chest CTs to screen for a disease with (let's say) a 0.1%
fatality rate, the side effects of your screening increases the fatality rate
by 50%.

~~~
anonsivalley652
It's ~29000 deaths / 70M CT scans per year.

That's 414 micromorts, which is almost exactly as risky as skydiving once on
average.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort)

Source: US NCI 2007

~~~
jonas21
The wikipedia article says skydiving is 8 micromorts per jump. So more like
skydiving 50 times?

~~~
medymed
I don’t think biologic math always works combinatorially like multiple sky
dives.

This sometime troubles me with radiation dosing comparisons. Another is time
distribution, when a radiologic imaging study is equated with exposure from X
amount of time in an airplane at high altitude. The time frames are
different—- drinking 1 liter of water in an hour is usually safe, and drinking
50 liters of water is fine spaced out over a longer time period—-but not 50
liters over an hour. Radiation doses are often quite time dense.

------
hsnewman
This implies that our government is managing the propaganda around Covid-19 by
simply not testing suspected cases. Is this true?

~~~
dredmorbius
To a substantial extent, yes.

UC Davis Medical Center statement on refusal of CDC to grant permissions to
test suspected patient:

[https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/contenthub/novel-
coro...](https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/contenthub/novel-coronavirus-
patient-and-precautions-at-uc-davis-medical-center/2020/02)

"UC Davis Health does not control the testing process."

Florida refusal to release testing data:

[https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/02/27/flo...](https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/02/27/florida-
wont-release-data-on-coronavirus-testing-1264003)

Note that Spring Break in the US, in which about 10 million college students
consume substances, exhibit poor judgement, congregate in large numbers, swap
bodily fluids, and return to some 3,000+ institutions of higher education,
begins today. With Florida and cruise ships as prime destinations.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_on_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_on_cruise_ships#Diamond_Princess)

I just posted my own update on COVID-19 yesterday (after watching events
overtake me for 4 days -- I'd started after listening to the US CDC press
conference on Feb 25):

[https://joindiaspora.com/posts/bc04cb503c840138f4b8002590d8e...](https://joindiaspora.com/posts/bc04cb503c840138f4b8002590d8e506)

On the Media's episode this week focuses strongly on COVID-19 and if anything
is rather _more_ alarmed and alarming than my own take (I very conciously
strove for verified data and sober takes):

[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-
med...](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-black-
swans)

Audio:
[https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/otm/...](https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm022820_cms997580_pod.mp3)

Features Laurie Garrett, excellent content. Focuses to a large extent on
_both_ government mishandling and information suppression -- in the US _having
no information to report_ rather than China's suppressing avaiable
information) -- as well as other forms of mis- and dis-information.

~~~
101404
> consume substances

I find this kind of euphemism use really weird. "Substances"? Water is a
"substance". A carpet is too. Why not just say what one is actually referring
to?

~~~
dredmorbius
You might care to insert "mind altering" before the phrase.

But as used, relatively common in standard English.

------
tejohnso
> At this point, the hospital called the CDC requesting permission to perform
> the COVID-19 testing. The CDC denied the request on the ground that I did
> not have the most life-threatening symptoms

Two questions:

1\. Why would the hospital require _permission_ to run a test?

2\. Why would the CDC not want to test suspicious cases _before_ severe
symptoms present? From what I've read, the virus is contageous whether severe
symptoms are present or not.

~~~
seraphsf
The core problem is that the CDC (and country) has had the capacity to test
only a few hundred samples per day. Meaning, they don’t have the ability to
test everyone with flu-like symptoms.

Nobody thinks it’s right to NOT test every potential case. It just wasn’t
possible.

Good news: Just today, they released new rules that should increase testing
capacity by 400x.

~~~
garmaine
The CDC doesn't run the tests. The hospitals and independent labs do. There
has been some issues with the test kits distributed by the CDC, but since the
virus genome has been sequenced you don't actually need a test kit (it's just
a faster process if you have one).

However the CDC has enacted emergency powers to make it _illegal_ for
hospitals to use their own testing equipment, which they have in-house, to
test their own patients unless they first get CDC approval. And the CDC has
ridiculously stringent requirements for approving these tests.

As a result, the only _confirmed_ case of community-spread COVID-19 in the US
is in Northern California, because the UC Davis hospital basically said "go
fuck yourself" to the CDC and tested anyway.

This is not because COVID-19 is not spreading throughout the community--it is!
--but rather because the CDC's stringent testing requirements _prevent_
testing of any case that cannot be rationalized away as having been caught
elsewhere. If you don't test for the virus, then you don't confirm the
presence of the virus, so there is no virus, amirite?

~~~
voidmain
Some clarification based on what I've been able to put together (caveat: I'm
not an expert in this area)

The CDC developed a testing protocol (crudely, a set of 3 conserved RNA
sequences of the virus to chemically "grep" for). The protocol is here [1] and
I think anyone with suitable equipment (an RT-PCR machine and an
oligonucleotide synthesizer to make the primers and probes?) could run tests
using just the information on that web page, though they would probably also
want known positive samples of the virus to validate against. And there are
lots of labs with suitable equipment. But as that page says, it is not legal
to do this clinically.

The CDC also sent out test kits [2]. These are just vials of primer/probe
pairs synthesized from the short sequences on the above page, and a fake
positive control to validate with. These were authorized by the FDA, and so
are legal to use. But apparently somehow they screwed up the production of
primer #3 (or maybe the sequence itself is wrong), and so almost all the labs
were not able to validate the test. After several _weeks_ the CDC has still
not fixed this problem, but labs are now allowed to run tests using just
primer 1 and 2, so testing capacity is rapidly increasing (though of course
who knows how sensitive or specific the tests are).

The federal organization preventing labs from running tests is the FDA [3],
not the CDC. It is also the FDA who would have to approve the commercially
produced test kits.

[1] [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-
panel-p...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-panel-primer-
probes.html) [2]
[https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download](https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download)
[3] [https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-
response/mcm-...](https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-
legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/information-laboratories-implementing-
ivd-tests-under-eua#ldt)

~~~
garmaine
What you say is correct, but is conflating a separate issue.

You are correct that FDA approval is required for a clinical test, and for
that a CDC test kit must be used (even though the biochemistry involved is
trivial and a grad student with access to the right tools could put together
their own kit...)

An entirely separate issue is that the CDC has used its emergency powers to
restrict usage of these kits--you cannot use the kit to test a patient unless
the CDC gives the OK for doing so. Even though for a long time many of these
kits were not being used to available capacity...

~~~
voidmain
My understanding was that prior to Friday, CDC Atlanta's comically limited RT-
PCR capacity was backlogged even under the "see-no-evil" testing criteria, and
that approximately no other labs were able to do tests (since validation of
the CDC issued tests failed). If there was _also_ unused lab capacity that is
good to know, do you have a source?

------
cnst
They don't post anything about the costs, but that would likely be the
defining vector in this whole situation.

I mean, let's face it — noone's going to go get tested if it means you'll have
to pay 5k+ out of pocket for the experience (even if it's a negative test and
you require no further treatment), plus would have to be fired from your job
for missing work and doing a self-quarantine for 2 weeks (if it's positive yet
mild enough to not require hospitalisation), plus be evicted from your
apartment for failing to pay rent due to the loss of the income (possibly
having to cut the self-quarantine short in the first place due to any such
pending evictions or the prospect thereof).

For this whole thing to work, testing has to be free, workers have to have
protections, housing has to be affordable and plentiful, and Andrew Yang's UBI
(Universal Basic Income) suddenly sounds like it might be a pretty good idea,
after all.

------
76543210
So is there a way to prepare our bodies for getting sick? Me and my wife and
our 8 month old live 40 hours a week in public, so it's going to happen.

We already eat healthy, me and the wife workout. But the kid? Not sure how to
prepare him.

~~~
dghughes
I'd say you're doing the only thing a person can.

You see many people speak of "boosting your immune system" but it's pure
quackery. A person's immune system is many layers and types, a system, it's
not a single thing that can be adjusted at will.

The way I see my immune system is a 100 liter tank of water. You can't
overfill it but it can be low. At most it can only be 100 liters. Your immune
system can only be as good as normal there's no turbo button to over-boost it.

~~~
redwood
Get enough sleep.

~~~
dolguldur
Yes. Pure speculation, but lack of sleep might have been a factor in
relatively young doctors in Wuhan dying from the virus. And quantity of viral
matter might also be an important factor.

------
outside1234
I have a brutal cold right now with a ton of congestion and a fever. I am
trying decide on if I should go to the hospital here in California - has
anyone read anything that helps you make that decision?

I am a Caltrain rider daily and I feel like it is not fair to subject other
folks to this if it is a COVID-19 - but I don't also want to overload the
health system unnecessary if there are folks with Acute symptoms.

~~~
gdubs
Either way you should call first — speak to a doctor on the phone and get
their recommendations.

~~~
rrss
stupid, mostly-unrelated question: how does 'call a doctor' usually work? do
most people have a doctor that they can just call? If I had a need to call a
doctor (fortunately I don't at the moment), but don't know any doctors, what
should I do?

~~~
gdubs
Assuming you’re in the US and have insurance you can usually go on your
insurance company’s website and find a local provider (doctor). You can then
just call them up and say you’re looking for a new primary care physician.

Also, many areas have urgent care centers for things that are serious but
maybe not emergency room serious.

Unfortunately, cost is a variable in the US and I can’t give any good guidance
on that. (Not a doctor, standard disclaimer.)

~~~
dillonmckay
Good luck with using the insurance company’s website. The doctors they list in
my area seem to either be deceased or not accepting new patients.

------
ssutch3
Doctors give out the "unknown virus" diagnosis literally all the time. It's
extremely common.

------
curiousgal
China: underreports diagnosed cases.

U.S.: underdiagnozes cases.

Not sure which is worse.

~~~
dredmorbius
At least in China, somebody knew the ground truth.

As much as I criticised China's initial response, their eventual containment
has proved highly effective.

The US (and numerous other countries) are point-by-point repeating China's
initial failures.

This will delay control by days. Growth is presently doubling every 3 or so
days, increasing by an order of magnitude every week. Delays will increase
consequences directly proportionate to those rates, both infections and
deaths.

As it is, if Rest-of-World (RoW) response is where China was ~22 January, we
can expect to see 100x present cases (~2 orders of magnitude) and ~500x
present deaths (~2.5x OOM). Very roughly.

~~~
drclau
What was your critique of China's measures?

To me the extreme measures were just an indication that they understood better
than they let the rest of the world know what they are dealing with. I mean,
they locked down entire cities at who knows what costs, and they were
_disinfecting the streets_. Or maybe they did let everyone know via official
channels. Frankly, I was surprised that WHO didn't treat this as an emergency
much earlier.

~~~
dredmorbius
I criticised the _initial response_ , largely from ~mid December 2019 - ~21
January 2020, specifically attempts to shut down any and all discussion of the
outbreak initially, as well as downplaying reports. See from three weeks ago
this thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22274827](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22274827)

In terms of the actual epidemiological response, most especially since ~22
January, limiting travel, events, large congregations of people, and shutting
down workplaces and schools, has been absolutely appropriate. Those measures
have received some criticism, including by Chinese citizens. I don't feel
_those_ criticisms are at all warranted.

The information environment is difficult to navigate. I'd argue that China's
erred on the side of too much control, as it tends to do, but in general,
_after_ 22 January, the process as a whole has worked, judging by results. The
challenges are certainly staggering, particularly at China's scale. The
avoiding of mass panic and protest is commendable.

The fact that other governments -- Japan, Korea, Iran, and the United States,
notably, and all but certainly North Korea, are repeating many of the same
mistakes (or multiplying them several-fold, in the case of Iran and PRK) --
shows that this is highly typical.

I'm also quite disappointed by the international response, and that of the
United States quite specifically.

One of the first references I posted to HN following news of the Wuhan
outbreak was Albert Camus' 1948 novel, _The Plague_. The story it tells, of
society, government, and individuals, in the face of pestilence, is timeless.
And contains valuable lessons:

[https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/the-
pl...](https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/the-plague.pdf)
(PDF)

HN submission:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22150237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22150237)

------
lubujackson
The reality is that containment has long been off the table, which should be
obvious to anyone who understands the jist of R0, the long incubation, the
reality of global travel and the lack of tests.

It is time to switch modes from quarantine to containment and stop pointing
fingers. Openly tracking potential cases in realtime can help communities slow
the spread so we don't get crushed with huge spikes of critical cases all at
the same time.

------
throwGuardian
Not to state the obvious, but there's not been a diagnosis of covid-19 yet, so
let's keep that in mind before concluding this person has it.

Also, otherwise healthy 30-year olds need to do exactly what this person is
doing: quarantine & treat it with the same meds as the flu.

------
fabian2k
The story is rather worrying, and as there is at least one news report about
it now I assume at least a basic amount of checking has been done to verify
it.

From what I read, in many of the publicized cases here in Europe that started
with a single person travelling there were several confirmed cases in people
with close contact to the original patient.

The reports from the US are mostly about single patients with no known source
of infection and about denied tests. If you don't test, you don't actually
know how widespread the virus is right now. It seems plausible to me that the
low number of cases in the US is mostly because of the far more limited
testing, and not because there are actually that few cases.

~~~
xbmcuser
Korea had few confirmed infections. Then a few people got very sick they
started testing everyone those people were in contact with now they have
thousands of confirmed infections why because they tested thousands of people
not because thousands of people are very sick. So I agree not just the US many
other countries probably have larger number of infected but few severe cases
so not much testing.

------
rkagerer
On the face of it, seems stupid you didn't get tested. But I don't know the
other side of the story. If there really is a limited supply of these tests,
it makes sense for CDC to assign them accordingly. Frankly, if you don't end
up with COVID-19, this is a bit of a non-story.

Regardless, it sounds like a bigger budget should be set aside for for
testing. If I was in charge and had the resources, EVERYONE coming back from
an infected country would be tested; symptoms or not.

If it turns out you do have it, my thoughts and best wishes go out to you.
(I'm sure the media coverage will explode; shame these things don't get the
attention until after the fact).

~~~
partiallypro
The CDC has undoubtedly pushed massive amounts of funds into test kits...but
that has to be manufactured. It doesn't just appear instantly and out of thin
air. Then you have to distribute it to clinics/ERs. Testing will gradually
expand, and the requirements for testing will be loosened once supply can
finally meet demand.

~~~
baq
In the mean time, why not import test kits from Italy or South Korea? Those
countries test hundreds daily, if not thousands.

~~~
partiallypro
I would assume because Italy and South Korea need those kits since they
actually have massive outbreaks where in the US it has been very muted.

------
voidhorse
Welp. I've been a bit wary about riding the subway while corona is bouncing
around, and this pretty much confirms that I should be.

------
kyberias
What is this? We don't know whether this person even had the corona virus.

------
ropiwqefjnpoa
It's going to spread here, I'd rather have it and get immunity sooner than
later when it's full swing and treatment might be limited.

~~~
volkk
you dont get immunity to it. you can re-catch it, at least according to
certain sources. woman in japan got it again, or at least it seemed to have
gone away entirely, and then came back.

------
themagician
This helps highlight just how much of this is nothing more than FUD.

The CDC counts real flu deaths and estimates infections. It doesn’t test for
them. As a result you get a relatively low fatality rate.

But for COVID-19 we are using only confirmed deaths and confirmed tested
infections to come up with a fatality rate that seems much higher than it
actually is because most infections go unreported.

This is just a reality of the post-fact based world we now live in. Everything
is bonkers.

~~~
mlyle
Medical statisticians are not tards, and the math used to estimate CFRs is
reasonable. Yes, there's uncertainty, because when something is massively
growing, it's not meaningful to test the population at large and ordinary
surveillance mechanisms are not effective yet. We also don't really have
serological testing (allegedly Singapore has a good serological assay?) which
doesn't help.

It's worth noting that the real issue is that CFR skyrockets when the medical
system saturates. With good medical care available, the CFR is still much
higher than the flu but less crazy. The problem is, COVID-19 can create enough
severely ill cases to saturate medical systems with uncontrolled spread.

~~~
bobcostas55
>Medical statisticians are not tards

This paper has 4000 citations:
[https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/1990/01000/No_Adjus...](https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/1990/01000/No_Adjustments_Are_Needed_for_Multiple_Comparisons.10.aspx)

~~~
mlyle
So? It has a point. I disagree with a lot of it, but...

* The fundamental point: A study with 100 comparisons will erroneously reject the null hypothesis at p<0.05 for 5 of them, which is a good part of why we adjust for multiple comparisons. But the same issue holds if we do 100 studies, and reject null for 5 of them. One of the fundamental problems with p values is that we don't really know the baseline number of things being compared in unpublished and preliminary research, which in turn makes the p value somewhat meaningless.

In effect, we've unfairly penalized the study with multiple comparisons vs.
the same findings showing up from studies with individual comparisons.

* Studies with multiple comparisons are great engines of hypothesis generation. Setting too high a bar for rejecting associations means that we'll possibly discard too much.

* Most of our tests for multiple comparisons assume a degree of statistical independence which just isn't present.

The abstract is particularly horribly written, but those three points are
reasonable points. (At the same time, there's circumstances where _obviously_
we need to adjust appropriately or get absolutely stupid, irreproducible
results-- e.g. fMRI data.

