Discussions
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020

Why are some people stridently defending old data and assumptions? This is a fluid situation that is still rapidly evolving. The notion that it’s far more deadly than a bad seasonal flu was based on early and very limited testing. The only people tested initially were those showing up at hospitals with severe symptoms, so naturally the case fatality rate (CFR) was extremely high. It was expected that it would drop as testing became more widespread and people with mild symptoms were taken into account. And that’s exactly what has happened, which is the normal trend for every pandemic in recent history. Recent random blood tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County (published April 17) and Los Angeles County (published April 20) show that the virus is much, much more widespread than previous testing of symptomatic patients has shown, which implies that the CFR is quite a bit lower. It has also shown that the vast majority of people who get it have relatively mild symptoms; in other words they have not needed to go to the hospital. In virtually every place in the U.S. except NYC, and in most countries around the world, we’re seeing that the CFR is pretty close to a (bad) seasonal flu; much higher for elderly people with one or more serious health conditions and much lower for younger, healthier people. Now that we’re beginning to understand that, we can protect the most vulnerable and let everyone else get back to work and school and stop the massive, destructive lockdowns that have left tens of millions without jobs and income and will result in a host of other devastating impacts to millions of people; far more than the direct impact of the Wuhan virus on the 56,000 who have died in the U.S. so far, almost all of whom are elderly with severe health problems. More data improves understanding of the scope of the problem and how best to deal with it. Locking yourself into old data, initial assumptions based on that old data, and early strategies to deal with the virus is a fool’s game. These doctors have simply pointed out that the reality on the ground almost everywhere is vastly different than was initially predicted, with the notable exception of New York City. Clearly there are other factors affecting the spread of the virus because it is much more prevalent in some cities than others. Let’s modify government policies and personal behavior to reflect the latest information and not waste our energy defending the continued use of self-defeating, counterproductive, and ultimately more dangerous policies like locking down the entire country. We know more now, and it’s time to open up the country everywhere except in a few places.

Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020

The purpose of keeping people at home was to “flatten the curve”, to spread the severe infections out over time instead of all at once so medical facilities wouldn’t be overwhelmed. It wasn’t to prevent the virus from spreading. We accomplished that a couple weeks ago. New cases are diminishing, and because the virus is easily killed by the heat and sunlight new cases are expected to continue to decline. Except in a few places (NYC), hospitals were never overwhelmed, or anywhere close to it. From the data we can clearly open up almost the entire country right now and hospitals will not be overwhelmed. Unfortunately, the original purpose of “flattening the curve” has been replaced with the unrealistic goal of preventing infections. We don’t, and can’t, prevent the flu from infecting tens of millions and killing tens of thousands every year in the U.S. We can’t do it for this virus either, which, based on more recent random serological testing, is far more widespread and far less deadly than originally thought. Now that we have a better idea of who are the most vulnerable—elderly with one or more serious health problems—we can protect them. And we don’t have to shut down the entire country, destroy millions of jobs and impoverish tens of millions. All for a virus that is proving to be only slightly more deadly than a bad flu season.

No activity yet.
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020

Why are some people stridently defending old data and assumptions? This is a fluid situation that is still rapidly evolving. The notion that it’s far more deadly than a bad seasonal flu was based on early and very limited testing. The only people tested initially were those showing up at hospitals with severe symptoms, so naturally the case fatality rate (CFR) was extremely high. It was expected that it would drop as testing became more widespread and people with mild symptoms were taken into account. And that’s exactly what has happened, which is the normal trend for every pandemic in recent history. Recent random blood tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County (published April 17) and Los Angeles County (published April 20) show that the virus is much, much more widespread than previous testing of symptomatic patients has shown, which implies that the CFR is quite a bit lower. It has also shown that the vast majority of people who get it have relatively mild symptoms; in other words they have not needed to go to the hospital. In virtually every place in the U.S. except NYC, and in most countries around the world, we’re seeing that the CFR is pretty close to a (bad) seasonal flu; much higher for elderly people with one or more serious health conditions and much lower for younger, healthier people. Now that we’re beginning to understand that, we can protect the most vulnerable and let everyone else get back to work and school and stop the massive, destructive lockdowns that have left tens of millions without jobs and income and will result in a host of other devastating impacts to millions of people; far more than the direct impact of the Wuhan virus on the 56,000 who have died in the U.S. so far, almost all of whom are elderly with severe health problems. More data improves understanding of the scope of the problem and how best to deal with it. Locking yourself into old data, initial assumptions based on that old data, and early strategies to deal with the virus is a fool’s game. These doctors have simply pointed out that the reality on the ground almost everywhere is vastly different than was initially predicted, with the notable exception of New York City. Clearly there are other factors affecting the spread of the virus because it is much more prevalent in some cities than others. Let’s modify government policies and personal behavior to reflect the latest information and not waste our energy defending the continued use of self-defeating, counterproductive, and ultimately more dangerous policies like locking down the entire country. We know more now, and it’s time to open up the country everywhere except in a few places.

Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020
Reply to: Dr. Erickson’s viral “COVID-19 Briefing” video is dangerously wrong Posted April 28, 2020

The purpose of keeping people at home was to “flatten the curve”, to spread the severe infections out over time instead of all at once so medical facilities wouldn’t be overwhelmed. It wasn’t to prevent the virus from spreading. We accomplished that a couple weeks ago. New cases are diminishing, and because the virus is easily killed by the heat and sunlight new cases are expected to continue to decline. Except in a few places (NYC), hospitals were never overwhelmed, or anywhere close to it. From the data we can clearly open up almost the entire country right now and hospitals will not be overwhelmed. Unfortunately, the original purpose of “flattening the curve” has been replaced with the unrealistic goal of preventing infections. We don’t, and can’t, prevent the flu from infecting tens of millions and killing tens of thousands every year in the U.S. We can’t do it for this virus either, which, based on more recent random serological testing, is far more widespread and far less deadly than originally thought. Now that we have a better idea of who are the most vulnerable—elderly with one or more serious health problems—we can protect them. And we don’t have to shut down the entire country, destroy millions of jobs and impoverish tens of millions. All for a virus that is proving to be only slightly more deadly than a bad flu season.