
U.S. Coronavirus Cases Are Rising Sharply, but Deaths Are Still Down - sxp
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/health/coronavirus-mortality-testing.html
======
DeonPenny
This just means that testing was limiting factor before but thats not a
surprise based on the papers coming out. We even see this is data like
cases/per test. We get far less case per the test we have now because we've
tested all the obvious people.

In all actuality way more people were infected before, the deaths per
infections is much higher and virus is much less deadly than the 3.4% the WHO
quoted or the .5% we thought it was in NYC.

------
canada_dry
Really, this shouldn't be a surprise.

Epidemiologists note that successful viruses _don 't_ kill their host.
Covid-19 has all the hallmarks of a virus that will evolve into a strain (or
strains) that will be part of the regular flu season - marked by severe
symptoms. Of course the elderly and immunocompromised people will always be at
greater risk of death due to any form of the flu.

When hospitals and first responders began using PPE to handle all virus
patients it isolated the most lethal strains of the virus and significantly
reduced the spread in the general population.

In addition, critical care units now have the ventilators and protocols needed
to more effectively deal with the virus.

------
eganist
Just means healthcare providers have used the time to ramp up.

If the acceleration of the infection rate continues at a pace that would
eventually surpass the scalability of healthcare provisioning, we're back in
the pits. A lot of local and state governments are trying to balance these two
in order to keep some semblance of normality while enabling healthcare
providers to manage caseloads and keep deaths down.

~~~
mcnamaratw
No, no. The virus is over. The pandemic was multiple news cycles ago. Say the
death rate doubles 2-3 times a week, but deaths right now are very low. In
that case we're fine. Forget about exponential growth, that's so March 2020.

EDIT: Folks have already raised the following objections: (a) My sarcasm above
is lame and pointless, because we all know some people take the position that
the virus is much less dangerous now. (b) My sarcastic comment above is an
unfair straw man argument. (I.e. nobody really takes that position.) (c) The
virus really is less dangerous than it was believed to be in March (though
nobody has so far questioned the fact that death rates were doubling every 2-3
days back then). (d) The virus has changed. It is actually different and less
dangerous than it was in March.

~~~
mcnamaratw
Someone saw fit to downvote, which is part of the process.

But I'm curious. Does that mean you see that I intended heavy sarcasm, but you
disagree with my actual position (i.e. that we're still in danger)? Or that
you disapprove of sarcasm on HN or w/r/t COVID-19? Or the sarcasm didn't come
through in what I wrote? Something else?

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

~~~
boredpudding
It means that your sarcastic comment didn't add anything to the discussion. We
know people behave like that, however, jokingly imitating them doesn't add
anything to the thread and is just a lame joke.

~~~
mcnamaratw
Thanks. Since HN is overrun right now with people who are more or less denying
that the virus is dangerous, I have to disagree with you. But it's nice to
know what you're thinking.

~~~
salmon30salmon
I am probably the archetype of the straw man you invented in your comment
regarding people saying the virus is not dangerous. Let me make a few things
clear to you and the others who see this as a binary proposition.

This virus is _very_ dangerous to specific groups of people. We know this not
only through observation but also through a more complete understanding on its
spread, mechanism of action and cross-reactivity. We also know, with a good
deal of certainty, that there are also groups who are at a very, very low
level of risk from this virus.

What the people you so easily disparage are arguing is not that the virus is
not dangerous, but that we are not responding to the actual threat, but rather
the perceived threat based on data that is now 5 months old. And that by
making this mistake, we are increasing danger to not only those at risk to the
virus but also those who are at low risk through our obtuse response.

There are facts which can't be denied. The IFR is NOT anywhere near as high as
we once feared. This is good news! We have two treatments that seem to help.
This is good news! We understand that a majority of those infected will
exhibit minor or no symptoms. This is good news! But we are still _acting_ as
if this has a 2% IFR and no treatment.

We have less certainty, but are still researching the following. There is
evidence that cross-reactivity in T-Cells with other coronaviruses is helping
reduce the impact on a large portion of the population. We see evidence that
_something_ has changed in the virus in the past 6 months. Genome sequencing
hasn't revealed if this is true or not, but the research is ongoing. We see
that outdoor spread is very unlikely. We believe nosocomial spread is a
primary means. We see that super-spreaders may account for more of the spread
than asymptomatic incidental contact. We have contradicting evidence of
lockdown efficacy. And most importantly, we have not seen a TRUE 2nd wave.
What is going on in the USA is not a 2nd wave at the community level, no
community that had a large first wave is currently seeing a second wave.

Finally, there is debate around whether the herd immunity level is far lower
than once thought. Michael Levitt and others are postulating that around
20-25% of the population needs to be infected to see a sharp decline in
infections. This has played out in a lot of continental Europe, NYC and the
UK.

So it isn't as simple as your snide sarcasm would have us believe. This is why
actual debate is needed, not dismissive arrogance as displayed by your
comments.

~~~
mcnamaratw
Thanks. That's a good example.

Three months ago deaths were doubling every 2 to 3 days. That's some of the
little data we really have. Same virus (although there are speculations that
perhaps now there are multiple forms). We're being more careful about
transmission ... except when we're not. We seem to be better at treatment.
Vulnerable population is unchanged.

