Some perspective on the risk of dying from coronavirus versus normal annual risk

[DopeyDame]

The research is poorly presented. He says,

So what he's saying is that preventing yourself from getting covid, for most adults cuts your chances of dying that year in half.

Basically it's saying that since we all tolerate the tiny chance we have of dying in some ways, we should accept anything that presents a similar risk. We accept 100 deaths a year from automobile accidents and all the other accidental deaths a year or deaths from heart disease add up to about what we're losing to coronavirus so what's the big deal with coronavirus?

Except the deaths we get from most accidents or illnesses are what happen after we do everything we can to mitigate their human toll. We have laws governing how cars are made and how people can drive them. We have laws governing protecting neighborhood kids from falling into your pool.

Also, using a logarithmic chart obscures that once you get to 65+ the chance of dying from coronavirus can be several times higher than without it.

If you read the study itself what he's advocating is the Swedish model. Isolating everyone over the age of 70 and letting the virus otherwise spread normally. Which utterly failed to protect the most vulnerable in Sweden. It seems like hubris to see a plan fail so miserably in a country with a much much better health care system (Sweden vs UK) and think the approach would come out differently if you did it. If I remember... Nemesis follows Hubris.

This is such an important point!
I had a professor in college who was fond of saying "anything is linear if you plot it log v log with a thick magic marker"
Logarithmic scales have their place (like earthquakes!) but is extremely misleading and disingenuous in this scenario.

 

[hellow]

We all seem to focus on Death in this discussion. I have lived and worked with abuse victims, and I can tell you that states closing schools indefinitely because of the fear of "one more death" isnt thinking of the poor kids who see school as the only sanctuary in their life. Shutting down indiscriminately because we are in fear of this disease, rather than implementing plans to focus on those most likely to be hurt by the virus is ridiculous. The thought of keeping kids housebound with an abusive parent is just one of the side-effects of this fear. So many other ill-effects on large populations (mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, etc) are not even being considered, yet I would be willing to bet that many people would prefer the higher risk of death versus living that way. Please don't tell me "I should be ashamed of myself" for thinking that way. Everyone sees a situation from their own perspective (lived and experienced) and deserves to be heard.

 

[cobright]

Please don't tell me "I should be ashamed of myself" for thinking that way. Everyone sees a situation from their own perspective (lived and experienced) and deserves to be heard.

This is a fair point. It's one I don't agree with, but I understand it and no one should try to shame you for expressing it.

What I would ask is ... Is increasing the community exposure to a deadly and contagious virus the best way to prevent child abuse? I'm not saying it isn't, but I don't think it is. What kind of math or metrics would anyone accept to support a decision either way here?

and I can tell you that states closing schools indefinitely because of the fear of "one more death" isnt thinking of the poor kids who see school as the only sanctuary in their life. Shutting down indiscriminately because we are in fear of this disease, rather than implementing plans to focus on those most likely to be hurt by the virus is ridiculous.

Framing an opposing perspective as ridiculous after asking not to be told you should be ashamed of yourself for speaking your mind seems a tad overweening.

In any case. Schools represent a major community transmission point. Within each classroom at the smallest scale, It exposes all the families of each child to all the families of each child as well as the teacher and the family of the teacher. Only the smallest, core, segment of that population can really be considered safe from this virus (used loosely).

I have someone in my home who with only half an immune system. Many households include grandparents and people with chronic illnesses who would be exposed by the children of the household going to school every day. The census for 2016 says that about 7% of households with children also include a grandparent.

On paper, the risk of illness to vulnerable people exposed to the virus by children in their household and the risk that children kept at home will be abused by their parents seem comparable. Or rather, I wouldn't begin to compare them at all. More people would die by opening up the schools, but more kids will endure a greater amount of either neglect or abuse including violence.

If this was a world where doing something to protect one group of people required dooming the other I would not be so dismissive of the idea that we should open up the schools regardless of its human cost.

The idea that we are this comfortable leaving children in abusive environments so long as they get a 6 hour break 5 times a week bothers me even more when these children's safety is used to justify risking the health and lives of others.

 

[kdonnel]

The idea that we are this comfortable leaving children in abusive environments so long as they get a 6 hour break 5 times a week bothers me even more when these children's safety is used to justify risking the health and lives of others.

I don't think anyone is comfortable leaving children in abusive environments. But that break during school might be just enough time to prevent some abuse.

If this was a world where doing something to protect one group of people required dooming the other I would not be so dismissive of the idea that we should open up the schools regardless of its human cost.

There is a group predicting 28,000 - 150,000 deaths of despair that can be tied to the lock down. The unemployment, isolation and uncertainty could drive people towards drug and alcohol deaths and suicide.

It would appear we are in a situation where protecting one group is dooming another. A really tough situation to decide which group deserves protection more then the other.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-deaths-suicides-drugs-alcohol-pandemic-75000/

 

[hellow]

Thank you Kdonnel for providing documentation that supports my post. There are always unintended consequences in across-the-board policies.

 

[cobright]

There is a group predicting 28,000 - 150,000 deaths of despair that can be tied to the lock down. The unemployment, isolation and uncertainty could drive people towards drug and alcohol deaths and suicide.

I respect that group and their study looks well founded. I would only put this into a context that without the anemic lockdown orders in effect until now the models show 100s of thousands dead and the presidents staff's 'best guess' model predicts a total death toll of 300k if restrictions are lifted. With Georgia Tech as a notable exception, most university models are showing this to be far too optimistic.

The Wellbeing Trust does not model for comparison the 'deaths of despair' that will result from so many lost family members.

It would appear we are in a situation where protecting one group is dooming another. A really tough situation to decide which group deserves protection more then the other.

This is true only if relaxing self-isolation orders is the only way to treat the 'despair'. It simply isn't. It's just the cheapest. The despair being faced here is largely economic loss and uncertainty. In the richest country on Earth. These are things we could treat if we really wanted to.

I get that eventually the economic cost will become high enough and the human cost will become low enough (if not in absolute terms then at least in comparison) that stay-at-home and social distancing orders will have to be relaxed.

Ideally that would happen after enough investment into testing, tracking, and focused isolation is made that the effects on the human toll would be greatly mitigated. But that costs money too.

If one were the kind to believe that something in the universal spin might be inclined to test us, I could think of no better snapshot of the soul of a country than the lengths it is willing to go to stave off the needless death of its most vulnerable in the presence of a catastrophe and the despair of those who endure it.

 

[DeniseJH]

I respect that group and their study looks well founded. I would only put this into a context that without the anemic lockdown orders in effect until now the models show 100s of thousands dead and the presidents staff's 'best guess' model predicts a total death toll of 300k if restrictions are lifted. With Georgia Tech as a notable exception, most university models are showing this to be far too optimistic.

The Wellbeing Trust does not model for comparison the 'deaths of despair' that will result from so many lost family members.


This is true only if relaxing self-isolation orders is the only way to treat the 'despair'. It simply isn't. It's just the cheapest. The despair being faced here is largely economic loss and uncertainty. In the richest country on Earth. These are things we could treat if we really wanted to.

I get that eventually the economic cost will become high enough and the human cost will become low enough (if not in absolute terms then at least in comparison) that stay-at-home and social distancing orders will have to be relaxed.

Ideally that would happen after enough investment into testing, tracking, and focused isolation is made that the effects on the human toll would be greatly mitigated. But that costs money too.

If one were the kind to believe that something in the universal spin might be inclined to test us, I could think of no better snapshot of the soul of a country than the lengths it is willing to go to stave off the needless death of its most vulnerable in the presence of a catastrophe and the despair of those who endure it.

VERY well put. Please be ready to post this over, and over. Thank you!

 

[cobright]

VERY well put. Please be ready to post this over, and over. Thank you!

Well thank you.
I like facts, if I ever say something that sounds wrong and I haven't cited it call me on it and I'll dig them back up. I love a Socratic dialog. But this ... I don't pretend I'm saying anything more than an opinion backed by a little frustration. Or maybe the other way around. I don't suppose this is something I can be 'right' about in the sense that anyone who disagrees with me must then be wrong. It gets too easy down that road to start hating people. But this sentiment is likely to blurt out from time to time, take it or leave it.

I think 'we', as a people, should be (and should have been) locking down harder and doing more to make the lock-down easier on the hardest hit. I honestly believe that most of the people who disagree with me either do so because the lock-down has put them into a existential crisis, financially; or they truly feel that opening up the restrictions now is in the best interest in the country. It could end up they're right, but I would still prefer we try a little harder before giving in.