Med prof: There are ‘major problems’ with current coronavirus mortality estimates

[dvdjs]

What do you mean by “lack of mitigation.” Note the article states that the London model the 1.1M deaths “with trhee months of social distancing measures , including closing all schools and universities, isolating infected patients and ordering household quarantines.” And the UW model also was “based on the assumption that people will continue practicing social distancing through May.”

It seems that there is some confusion about the London model. Here is a good article that has clear on the point quotes from the scientist responsible for the model .

The Federalist’s Dangerous Coronavirus Trutherism

WTF happened? The publication’s reactionary turn and the hollowing out of conservatism.

thebulwark.com

Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College team had predicted in an analysis dated March 16 that the U.K.’s health care system would be overwhelmed and many people would die if the U.K. did not impose a shutdown and adopt strict “social distancing” policies. Then, in testimony delivered last week on March 25, he told a parliamentary committee that he is now projecting far fewer deaths after the U.K. adopted those policies. This is not a “walkback” of his previous predictions but a confirmation of them. It’s all right there in the New Scientist article…

[Ferguson] said that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people’s movements make him “reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower. [Emphasis added.]

As the man himself explained on Twitter:

Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19. This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged. My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place. Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).

You can read the original Imperial College report for yourself and look particularly at Tables 4 and 5, where a long-term “suppression” strategy that includes shutdowns and social distancing—as opposed to the less restrictive “mitigation” strategy previously adopted by the British government—leads to a total number of deaths consistent with Ferguson’s current predictions.

 

[OraLabora]

In early/mid February, myself and a couple of friends got this really, really weird 'flu, a kind of “what on earth was that all about” experience

So did I. It didn’t follow the pattern of a normal cold/flu. And the symptoms resembled COVID-19. Headache, chills, probably fever (I didn’t check, I was living in a monastery for a month), dry cough and really sore throat. It was over in just over a week.

But we can’t avoid the fact that enough people get so sick from the virus that it can flatten a developed country’s health system in a few weeks (cf Italy and Spain).

In Quebec where I live, seniors’ residences have turned into morgues. It’s devastating to watch our elders die such an awful death, and alone.

I too suspect the virus has been around longer than we think and some early deaths were probably attributed to the seasonal flu; early on, it would not have made a huge dent in the flu death rate. But regardless, it’s a humanitarian crisis.

I’d love to have an antibody test though, to see if that weird flu in mid-February was just a flu… or COVID. I did however, get my flu shot in November.

 

[mrad25]

I’d love to have an antibody test though, to see if that weird flu in mid-February was just a flu… or COVID. I did however, get my flu shot in November.

Definitely get an antibody test if of you can. I’m glad you are feeling better. I think more people have had it then what we know. I have heard a lot of stories of people being sick in early February with similar symptoms of the virus. My sister in law has been sick for 27 days, tested negative for strep, flu and COVID-19, but had all the symptoms of COVID-19. By the time she was able to get a test she was 20 days in, and after testing negative was told it could have been a false negative as they are seeing a lot of people who are tested too early or late when not showing symptoms registering false negatives. After about 20 days of being sick every day she started to have some days which were better than others, she finally feels like she’s getting over it after about 3.5/4 weeks. She’s young, health and with no underlying conditions too.

I saw this story online…(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Kaninchen]

In Quebec where I live, seniors’ residences have turned into morgues. It’s devastating to watch our elders die such an awful death, and alone.

And frightening the way that excuses are found to avoid adding their deaths to the hospital totals - and even more frightening to hear “better a terrible end than an endless terror” suggestions about people (of all ages) suffering from serious (and therefore expensive) conditions.

I suppose I’ll have a test when they’re generally available but I doubt that my behaviour will change until it becomes clearer just how possible it is to carry the virus ‘mechanically’.

Not only that, of course, it remains unclear whether, like 'flu, a marginally different version will appear later in the year . . . . .

 

[CradleRC58]

U.S. 'days away' from widespread coronavirus antibody testing, experts say

Instead of detecting the virus itself, the tests detect proteins called antibodies that the immune system generates to fight COVID-19.

6abc.com

 

[Kaninchen]

It would appear that current finger-prick tests may not be reliably accurate and, since decisions made on the results of inaccurate COVID-19 testing involve inherent danger, it may be that we’ll have to wait somewhat longer before testing without lab involvement becomes viable.

 

[Maximus1]

Mitigation might be included as an assumption, but it is was an assumption of great uncertainty when factored in.
We look back in hindsight and nobody could have forecast the compliance levels. Empty NYC streets .
With respect to reduced estimates, they are not written in stone either.