
During coronavirus pandemic, we are making decisions without reliable data - ash
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/
======
rotexo
It seems to me the author would only be satisfied with retrospective
population serology tests (which determine if individuals in the population
have ever been infected with SARS-CoV-2), as opposed to RT-PCR, which gives
you a single time point as to whether the individual in question currently has
viral RNA in their respiratory track. Serology tests seem like they take
longer to develop, and population studies take even longer (at least, I
haven’t seen those kinds of studies coming out of China yet, correct me if I’m
wrong). So it sounds like the author wants a wait-and-see approach, which
seems like it turned out horribly for Italy. So I’m not buying his argument
yet. Are there any flaws in my thinking?

------
skmurphy
article by John Ioannidis, MD. Key paragraphs:

"The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the
epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to
date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-
CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections
by a factor of three or 300."

He infers that the true case fatality rate has a very broad range, but lower
than what was announced by WHO: "the real death rate could stretch from five
times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%)

------
zaroth
This is the smartest article on COVID I've read so far.

