Calculating The Actual Fatality Rate

[Lurker]

If you're assuming there's no immunity, then when can we open back up? We can't stay locked down forever. At some point we'll just have to take our chances and get back to quasi normal.

What I'm looking for is a medication that lowers the mortality rate to "acceptable" levels. People get sick all the time. We live our lives. I think if we can come up with a treatment regimen that makes this more like the flu, and then try to come up with a flu-like vaccine, we're ok.

[avromie7]

What I'm looking for is a medication that lowers the mortality rate to "acceptable" levels. People get sick all the time. We live our lives. I think if we can come up with a treatment regimen that makes this more like the flu, and then try to come up with a flu-like vaccine, we're ok.

Theres no chance the country stays shutdown until a vaccine is approved, there would sooner be a civil war.

[Lurker]

Theres no chance the country stays shutdown until a vaccine is approved, there would sooner be a civil war.

I'm ok with loosening up with the treatment regimen. I'd still keep higher risk people somewhat isolated, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the lower risk population getting back to work and limited normal activity. I'd still restrict mass gathering, such as concerts, sporting events, rallies, or pretty much anything over 500 people.

[AsherO]

I'm ok with loosening up with the treatment regimen. I'd still keep higher risk people somewhat isolated, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the lower risk population getting back to work and limited normal activity. I'd still restrict mass gathering, such as concerts, sporting events, rallies, or pretty much anything over 500 people.

Do you know how many events in the US we have with over 500 people? My guess is it’s tens of thousands a year.

[Lurker]

Do you know how many events in the US we have with over 500 people? My guess is it’s tens of thousands a year.

It's more. I'm aware.

[CountValentine]

What I'm looking for is a medication that lowers the mortality rate to "acceptable" levels.

...and here it is in a nutshell. What is ones "acceptable" level?
I think we can all agree it is different for everyone.

[AsherO]

It's more. I'm aware.

More than 10s of thousands? Hundreds of thousands events with over 500 participants?

[Lurker]

...and here it is in a nutshell. What is ones "acceptable" level?
I think we can all agree it is different for everyone.

It is different for everyone. My standard is the current standard. If we get to a point where this is no deadlier than anything else we currently live with, then we are essentially taking the same risks we've always taken. That's not just acceptable to me, that's acceptable to everyone who lives with the status quo.

ETA: I personally have a problem with other people deciding that others have to accept a higher standard of risk than the current norm. To me, it feels like a lack of awareness for anyone other than self. You know, that thing we yell at millennials about.

[Lurker]

More than 10s of thousands? Hundreds of thousands events with over 500 participants?

Sporting events, concerts, theatre, conventions, large schools, large places of worship, the list is very long. A disease this contagious is terrifying when you realize how many opportunities for mass infection there are on a daily basis in this country.

[CountValentine]

It is different for everyone. My standard is the current standard.

Would you agree if we made the restrictions even stronger we would save more lives?

[Lurker]

Would you agree if we made the restrictions even stronger we would save more lives?

Yes. And I think that many decision-makers are making bad decisions with their eye on profits and politics. I've said that before.

[Joe4007]

If the tests reflect infections from early April wouldn’t it make sense to count only the deaths until then? That would mean subtracting several thousand deaths resulting in a much lower fatality rate.
OTOH most deaths now are resulting from those infected several weeks ago. In that case maybe it makes sense to include current deaths?

I'm guessing that the average death occurs more than a month following disease contraction (think I saw some stats on that, but can't find it now) which means that the CFR is actually higher.

[CountValentine]

Yes.

So at what point do we say we can't go any further with the restrictions?
We then have the situation where the person who wants more restrictions will claim the higher moral ground because they feel they value life more.
 
I believe the Georgia governor is wrong and an idiot for what he is doing. But in all honesty can I say he doesn't value life the same? 

[aygart]

Would you agree if we made the restrictions even stronger we would save more lives?

As long as the hospitals have not gotten overwhelmed (it seems this has been very much toeing the line and sometimes somewhat past it but never on a scale like Italy) then there is a strong chance that we could not have saved more, but rather it would be the same numbers spread over a longer period. Stronger restrictions for more time to end up with the same result may not be the best trade-off considering the mental health repercussions etc. and that there would be a similar amount of broken families.

The entire purpose of all this was purely to prevent the hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Over the long term, the only other answer is a vaccine or improved treatment. If we were successful at that then we did very well. In a way, being close to overwhelming the system without quite getting there is the best possible outcome. It allows for the best medical results with the least disruption.

[neveryou]

As long as the hospitals have not gotten overwhelmed (it seems this has been very much toeing the line and sometimes somewhat past it but never on a scale like Italy) then there is a strong chance that we could not have saved more, but rather it would be the same numbers spread over a longer period. Stronger restrictions for more time to end up with the same result may not be the best trade-off considering the mental health repercussions etc. and that there would be a similar amount of broken families.

The entire purpose of all this was purely to prevent the hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Over the long term, the only other answer is a vaccine or improved treatment. If we were successful at that then we did very well. In a way, being close to overwhelming the system without quite getting there is the best possible outcome. It allows for the best medical results with the least disruption.

Alot of people are missing this point, that the whole point was to flatten the curve i.e. not overwhelm the system at once

[Dan]

Alot of people are missing this point, that the whole point was to flatten the curve i.e. not overwhelm the system at once

There's that, which means less deaths.
And there's the hope we find a working treatment and vaccine.

[neveryou]

There's that, which means less deaths.
And there's the hope we find a working treatment and vaccine.

There's not going to be a vaccine for at least a year
Things can't be shut down that long,

[Dan]

There's not going to be a vaccine for at least a year
Things can't be shut down that long,

And there's the hope we find a working treatment

[Lurker]

There was an idea of flattening the curve, which was done successfully, for the most part. The deaths we've seen would have been so much worse if we hadn't done that. The thing is, the deaths we've seen at the rate we've seen them are still unacceptable. By all accounts, the hospitals have not been grossly overwhelmed.

@CountValentine There comes a certain point where closing things up costs you more lives right now than not closing. That's where we get the concept of essential services. Being that we don't live in a perfect world, that line is never going to be drawn at the exact optimal place. I don't claim to have that line, and I don't think anyone does. I do think that people putting the economy first are costing lives that don't need to be lost. Does that give me the moral high ground? I don't think so. It just gives me different priorities.

I can comfortably say that the Governor of Georgia values life less than I do. He has other responsibilities and other priorities. It doesn't make me better than him, but it does mean he's more comfortable sacrificing lives for economic purposes than I am.

[avromie7]

There was an idea of flattening the curve, which was done successfully, for the most part. The deaths we've seen would have been so much worse if we hadn't done that. The thing is, the deaths we've seen at the rate we've seen them are still unacceptable. By all accounts, the hospitals have not been grossly overwhelmed.

@CountValentine There comes a certain point where closing things up costs you more lives right now than not closing. That's where we get the concept of essential services. Being that we don't live in a perfect world, that line is never going to be drawn at the exact optimal place. I don't claim to have that line, and I don't think anyone does. I do think that people putting the economy first are costing lives that don't need to be lost. Does that give me the moral high ground? I don't think so. It just gives me different priorities.

I can comfortably say that the Governor of Georgia values life less than I do. He has other responsibilities and other priorities. It doesn't make me better than him, but it does mean he's more comfortable sacrificing lives for economic purposes than I am.

You're essentially saying I don't think I'm taking the moral high ground but I value life more than him AKA I'm taking the moral high ground