
The Coronavirus Isn't Going Away – Interview with Harvard Epidemiologist - ronyeh
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/deep-background-with-noah-feldman/e/67663436
======
flarg
We literally need to rethink our blase attitude to public infection control.
Self isolation for cold and flu like symptoms should be mandatory.

------
mcv
With a 2% death rate, 40-70% of the world population is huge. That would mean
80 million dead I think.

I really do hope we can stop it or slow it down enough to find a cure. On the
other hand, the world has been through worse: the 14th century Black Plague
famously killed a third of the population of Europe. I hope we won't get
something like that again, but if we do, it's still not going to be the end of
the world. It'll suck, but we'll recover.

~~~
jbotz
Except that it is doubtful that it actually has a 2% death rate. Some huge
number of coronavirus infections are not being counted because they are
asymptomatic or presenting minimal symptoms[1], and thus those people aren't
being tested. In fact, probably even a lot of people with fairly serious
symptoms aren't being tested[2]. Only those being tested can test positive and
only those testing positive are getting counted, inflating the presumed
mortality rate massively. On top of that it seems the tests being used may be
giving a lot of false negatives, for example in people who have "recovered"
and test negative but then later test positive again, so they may have still
been infectious all along.

Bottom line; when you really look at all the facts, it seems that perhaps
Covid-19 is no more lethal than any more severe flu.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/asia/coronavirus-
tr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/asia/coronavirus-treament-
recovery.html)

[2]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/fayko1/my_covid19_stor...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/fayko1/my_covid19_story_brooklyn/)

~~~
ShorsHammer
This is something I always find strange when people make these basic
extrapolations with insane numbers for deaths.

Someone who never presents to hospital or gets tested can very much be
infected and would never get counted in this estimated mortality rate.

Our flu numbers aren't the same. Epidemiologists estimate infection rates.
They don't test 700 million people a year to see if they have the flu.

Flu is still a far bigger health concern but virtually everyone shrugs it off
as a fact of life.

~~~
OJFord
> Flu is still a far bigger health concern but virtually everyone shrugs it
> off as a fact of life.

Because it has been a fact of life for the entirety of everyone living's life.

nCoV is a new threat that can kill, of course people will worry about it, it's
instinctual.

We also don't have a vaccine for it yet, and an estimated 30% of infected
people need hospital treatment, which is surely more than the usual flu, and
requires more specialised & cautious care since less about it's known.

As the US' CDC says in the other nCoV post on the home page:

> The complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not fully
> understood.

It might just blow over and be fine, sure, but I don't think the response or
caution surrounding it is irrational.

~~~
MyelinatedT
> an estimated 30% of infected people need hospital treatment, which is surely
> more than the usual flu

That sounds like an extraordinarily high estimate. How could we have an
accurate estimate of hospitalisation proportions without even knowing how many
infections are out in the community?

It seems very, very likely that we are missing the vast majority of cases
given the tests are pretty inaccurate, and we only bother administering them
to people who are either extremely sick already, or who have been in an
"affected region" (realistically, every region is "affected" at this point).

~~~
OJFord
I have no idea; it's not a job I envy.

But what I read in the UK was that looking increasingly like 'about 50%' would
be infected, 'but only 30%' of those would actually need medical attention.
Something similar came from the US with '40-70%' instead of 'about 50'.

But yes, a large part of the concern, particularly for government bodies
coming out with these figures is preparedness; so they probably are erring on
the side of 'more resources needed' in these estimates. But why not? Better
over-prepared than under, not that that's looking likely.

------
nickgrosvenor
So sketchy! As they say in this podcast, hard to wrap your head around

------
fredgrott
Think of this way,,,

AIDs while changes genetics fast evading immune system its hard to catch and
takes decades to show up. It took us 35 years to come up with a vaccine and
that was due to our degree of knowledge of the immune system works at the
time.

Now, we have something easier to catch than the flu that requires
hospitalization to treat. Or in short words, myopic Trump is wrong; pushing
for a World-Wide vaccination effort funded by the US is not only securing USa
but securing the world.

This is the first case where we will have to pull together to vaccinate 7
billion people. Its not optional.

Any idea how many tons of steel to get 7 Billion new needles? It might be 5
million tons. That is about 5% US production or about less than 2% China
production. But, the real costs is not in the needles. Its the logistic costs
of trained medical personnel to deliver the vaccine.

~~~
gentaro
Well, 5 million / 7 billion is 0.000714, or 714 grams. I doubt it takes
anywhere near that much to make a needle.

