[ashtonkem]

Opening up without restrictions would kill somewhere between 500,000 and 1,300,000 Americans, assuming that the CFR doesn’t rise above 1% (an optimistic assumption). If you think lockdowns will kill that many Americans, then provide your sources.

[__blockcipher__]

I think you mean IFR not CFR.

The new estimates of HIT factoring in widespread t-cell cross-reactivity in humans that have NEVER been exposed to a SARS-like virus nor anyone who was themselves infected with one, implies that the true HIT is somewhere around 25%.

Do the math on the US with an IFR of .3% and an HIT of 25%. That’s what a likely scenario looks like. It means a few hundred thousand dead.

As an upper bound do the same math with .9% IFR and 25% HIT.

BTW you should also consider the risk that lockdown puts the body into a state where it is more susceptible to bad COVID-19 outcomes, due to vitamin d deficiency, lack of nitric oxide, lack of exercise, reduced sleep, social isolation, unemployment, and an unprecedented environment of widespread fear&hysteria. Also consider the lives we have already lost when calculating the delta between containment versus not practicing containment.

IMO containment is a foolish and infantile strategy which makes us perpetually at risk of an outbreak. Population immunity is the stable and logical solution. Banking on a vaccine is an awful idea, doubly so in a country where we can’t mandate a vaccine without plunging ourselves into civil war. Vaccine-attributable herd immunity only works if a bunch of people get vaccinated. Granted the t-cell reactivity findings alter the calculus there, but we would need to vaccinate people who do not demonstrate cross reactivity in order for that fact to change the number of required vaccines.

[ashtonkem]

> Do the math on the US with an IFR of .3% and an HIT of 25%. That’s what a likely scenario looks like. It means a few hundred thousand dead.

Let’s be precise. That’s a quarter of a million dead Americans. I’d consider that number to be deep in the “catastrophic failure” territory.

I also find the idea that the IFR would stay at 0.3% to be absurdly optimistic. We know that fatality rates scale with hospital load, any minor change to IFR could result in tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

> BTW you should also consider the risk that lockdown puts the body into a state where it is more susceptible to bad COVID-19 outcomes, due to vitamin d deficiency, lack of nitric oxide, lack of exercise, reduced sleep, social isolation, unemployment, and an unprecedented environment of widespread fear&hysteria. Also consider the lives we have already lost when calculating the delta between containment versus not practicing containment.

Prove it.

> IMO containment is a foolish and infantile strategy which makes us perpetually at risk of an outbreak.

It’s worked elsewhere.

> Banking on a vaccine is an awful idea, doubly so in a country where we can’t mandate a vaccine without plunging ourselves into civil war.

This level of nihilism is genuinely baffling to me. What course of action are you recommending? Just ignore it?

[__blockcipher__]

> I also find the idea that the IFR would stay at 0.3% to be absurdly optimistic. We know that fatality rates scale with hospital load, any minor change to IFR could result in tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Hospitals being overwhelmed is not a serious concern at this point in time. Even at NY at the peak, one hospital would be past capacity while a nearby one would be nearly empty. Shuffling is not ideal but it works.

> This level of nihilism is genuinely baffling to me. What course of action are you recommending? Just ignore it?

It's not nihilism. I don't believe that practicing containment actually avoids mortality, except in the most optimistic scenario where lockdown-associated deaths are unreasonably low and a safe/effective vaccine is developed and deployed unreasonably fast.

My recommendation is not to employ any measures to slow the spread of SARS-2 in the general population, but instead to let the virus naturally pass through the general population. We can practice containment for elderly care facilities, although those individuals should be permitted to leave the facility and stay at home if they abject to the prison-like conditions required to avoid pre-symptomatic spread.

> Let’s be precise. That’s a quarter of a million dead Americans. I’d consider that number to be deep in the “catastrophic failure” territory.

Well, we already have 130,000 deaths, so that's about double where we're at now. So, we're talking about a delta of +120,000 if you want to be hyper-precise (I was not to account for uncertainty).

That's not a catastrophic failure at all; early (unrealistic, but that didn't stop our policy leaders from using them) estimates were forecasting 2.2 million dead, that's Ferguson's paper with a .9% IFR and 82% of pop. getting infected.

Please don't twist these words to portray me as callous, as you seem apt to do, but are you aware that ~500k americans die from cardiac disease every year? Smoking?

> Prove it.

You know that there will never be a RCT, so you must rely on good mental models and experimental results, such as ones showing the incredible role of vitamin D in the pathology of respiratory illness, the fact that nitric oxide lowers blood pressure and is currently being studied as a possible COVID-19 treatment, the obvious result that closing gyms = less exercise, the fact that unemployment is disruptive to one's life and tends to lead to a disregulation of sleep schedules, emotional states, etc.

> It’s worked elsewhere.

Where, exactly? Be specific.

New Zealand is the classic example held up here, and now New Zealand, which is a tourist economy, cannot allow any foreign entrants into their country without a 2+ week quarantine. I think that's a bad and unstable solution. BTW this is less of a concern but it makes them vulnerable to bioterrorism (intentionally spreading SARS-2).

OTOH Sweden followed a herd immunity strategy and has gotten there. Findings of t-cell cross-reactivity in the absence of having ever been exposed to a SARS-type virus indicates that a large swath of the population is not susceptible to COVID-19, period. Of those that are, the vast majority will either be asymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, or experience symptoms consistent with a mild cold. A small fraction will develop severe COVID-19 (which is dramatically worsened by vitamin d deficiency), culminating in the need for invasive ventilation and possible death.

---

In general, the risks of COVID-19 itself have been overblown, and somehow we never have enough information despite very well-defined risk categories and good bounds on what bad COVID-19 looks like (it looks like SARS-1, the original SARS). Whereas what we do not have bounds on are the results of an unprecedented global economic destabilization and lockdown, nor the socioemotional costs we're inflicting upon our children as well as ourselves.

[ashtonkem]

> That's not a catastrophic failure at all; early (unrealistic, but that didn't stop our policy leaders from using them) estimates were forecasting 2.2 million dead, that's Ferguson's paper with a .9% IFR and 82% of pop. getting infected.

Honestly we might as well stop the conversation here. A quarter of a million extra dead isn't a failure? Wow. You and I just don't have anywhere close to the same values.

[__blockcipher__]

The difference is you think that mortality is avoidable. I don't. We're talking about the US, right? You still think containment is possible in the US? I am absolutely baffled.

---

You have used the classic rhetorical technique of those on the "doom" faction: take a well-reasoned rebuttal, and reply with a single sentence implying I am callous for openly discussing mortality.

No, the callous ones are those that are imposing a dangerous and unprecedented regime of lockdown, and using fear and hysteria to do so.

--

Also your math is just wrong. An extra quarter million? We already hit 130k dead, that leaves 120k left "to go" with your number.