Jonathan_Graehl

Comments

Why COVID-19 prevention at the margin might be bad for most LWers

20% of NYC had antibodies (per random pop sample). We can expect some small regions will make it out with sub 1% but I think there's a 90% chance at least 4% of the US will be antibody positive from exposure (with or without severe symptoms) after a year (and a 90% chance no more than 60% will). We'll apparently know more when the sedars-sinai antibody test is in wide use.

Why COVID-19 prevention at the margin might be bad for most LWers

We do know viral loads matter.

I did support lockdown (incl stronger measures than what the US employed) early on hoping for improved treatment. It's barely improved. Nothing great is coming.

Why COVID-19 prevention at the margin might be bad for most LWers

No, you're not missing anything. This should be obviously true to anyone who's observing. Hints of vaccine or treatment-magic-bullet just around the corner, anecdotal scary nonfatal effects, false hope of keeping sub-1% US-wide infected, etc have simply been upvoted in media for political reasons (esp. sunk cost fallacy, but it's complicated - no lockdown leader wants to be blamed for even one death caused by their decision to relax even partially). People have taken sides for/against lockdown and are digging in (there's also phony stuff on the open-up side - overexuberance for mostly-false-positive antibody results suggesting widespread infection so lower severity per infection).

Will COVID-19 survivors suffer lasting disability at a high rate?

I now believe we're hearing "even though the mortality per infection is well under 1% here are the terrible things besides dying that might happen to you" more because maximum scaremongering earns clicks and leads to improved compliance w/ sanitation/isolation measures we want. Personally I think the evidence that this is more or less hard to recover from if it doesn't kill you than any other viral illness just isn't there (though there are many identified differences in mechanism). For example, should we expect people with antibodies who never noticed symptoms to be impaired for 6 months? Not noticably.

How likely is the COVID-19 apocalyptic scenario?
Isn't that exactly what we are doing in our lockdown world? We are socially distancing and self-isolating, so mild cases always die out.

I don't follow your "so ..."

People who have avoided contact since Feb are incredibly more likely to be delaying (perhaps forever) their date of infection. Basically none of them have yet had a mild case.

It's an open question whether the strain we who've avoided it so far eventually are exposed to is more or less severe in symptoms (obviously it will tend to be more contagious) than the one people got in earlier waves. I always expected it would be (because fast onset fatal strains are quarantined more effectively and cannot spread) slower-onset, more lingering, but less severe. I don't have much reason to change my mind, even though you've brought an interesting historical claim into view.

Besides hospital workers, hardly anyone is going to hospitals unless they have covid already, and although it's not perfect, hygiene is practiced. I agree that hospital workers are more likely to contract a severe strain; that's why they should arguably should have been variolated by intentional light exposure already.

How likely is the COVID-19 apocalyptic scenario?
Apparently the virus had naturally selected in the trenches to become much more deadly. People mildly ill remained in the trenches, and so the virus could not spread. But those becoming gravely ill were taken to military hospitals, were the virus could spread.

Where is the evidence for the increased spreading through military hospitals? It's a nice story, and plausible.

How likely is the COVID-19 apocalyptic scenario?

Why wouldn't it have spread at as well in the trenches where you have repeated exposure to the same group of people? Open air/sunlight, perhaps? Or are you emphasizing the travel aspect (coming into contact with more people total than the mild cases)?

The Hammer and the Mask - A call to action

For sure people having a hard time breathing already will skimp on optional exit valve filtering, but you can sell it as helping-others to comply, and people will at least brag about how they're doing it.

The Hammer and the Mask - A call to action

"The idea is to not get infected in the first place" is not good thinking.

Given the long asymptomatic infectious period, both the "protect myself" and "protect others" effectiveness matter in a proposal for universal public wearing, although of course compliance is more incentivized by "protect myself".

That said, I don't question that these are good overall.

Load More