I’ve updated toward significantly less risk from COVID than I expected a week ago, for people aged 25-30:
Old numbers:
.2% mortality = 1 expected month
1.5% long-term side effect = 2 expected months
1% mortality from lack of ventilators = 5 expected months (10% hospitalized, 10% of those on ventilators, n_vent is .03% of pop and older people need more ventilators so we run out at ~1% of population infected, and no shutdown measures had been taken approximately 2 days before we hit 1% of population by my estimates)
Total = 8 expected months
New numbers (from ICL report; someone please tell me if I’m misunderstanding their context):
.05% mortality = .3 expected months
.7% long-term side effect = 1 expected month
.1% mortality from lack of ventilators = .5 expected months (2% hospitalized, 5% of those on ventilators)
Total = 2 expected months (maybe less if we never go above 2% of population infected in most places due to new shutdown measures, and ventilators are sufficiently mobile to move to crisis zones)
For older people, the numbers changed less (about a factor of 2), e.g. a healthyish parent in their 60s went from about 3 years of expected life lost to roughly 1.5 years.
In general, I feel fine with this outcome—the old numbers I was using were more an average than a median, so the most likely update was downward. I also adjusted the mortality rates downward somewhat, but I didn’t know how far, and the final update was further than I should have guessed. Lastly, a week ago the response was so abysmal that I think it was correct to have a factor of two worse expectation than I do now, just from failures to contain, treat, etc.
The one thing I wish I had done differently was weight South Korea’s numbers a little higher a little earlier, since priors were already on the side of lots of undiscovered/mild cases. I thought Wuhan’s testing was relatively good and things were partially adjusted for the missing cases, but I went like two weeks between looking at South Korea and that caused my numbers to lag somewhat. I think I could have been estimating 4-6 weeks as of a week ago, if I had flagged that better to come back to.
That mortality estimate seems a bit too low to me, Sarah Constantin estimated 0.1%-0.2% for someone below 40, so the lower end of that seems right to me.
The 0.1% mortality from lack of ventilators also seems too low to me. We might be a bit in luck in Bay Area since I think we are less likely to get it, but you should still expect that if you do get the virus, you get it when everyone else gets it, which means likely overwhelmed hospitals, and 0.1% mortality seems too low for that case. Sarah Constantin also estimates a total fatality rate of 1%-2% when hospitals are overwhelmed.
I don’t trust the numbers in the ICL report particularly much, since they are reliably lower than from other reputable sources, and I don’t actually see how they got numbers that were that low. I am currently reading through the study that they are basing their estimates on.
I’ve updated toward significantly less risk from COVID than I expected a week ago, for people aged 25-30:
Old numbers:
.2% mortality = 1 expected month
1.5% long-term side effect = 2 expected months
1% mortality from lack of ventilators = 5 expected months (10% hospitalized, 10% of those on ventilators, n_vent is .03% of pop and older people need more ventilators so we run out at ~1% of population infected, and no shutdown measures had been taken approximately 2 days before we hit 1% of population by my estimates)
Total = 8 expected months
New numbers (from ICL report; someone please tell me if I’m misunderstanding their context):
.05% mortality = .3 expected months
.7% long-term side effect = 1 expected month
.1% mortality from lack of ventilators = .5 expected months (2% hospitalized, 5% of those on ventilators)
Total = 2 expected months (maybe less if we never go above 2% of population infected in most places due to new shutdown measures, and ventilators are sufficiently mobile to move to crisis zones)
For older people, the numbers changed less (about a factor of 2), e.g. a healthyish parent in their 60s went from about 3 years of expected life lost to roughly 1.5 years.
In general, I feel fine with this outcome—the old numbers I was using were more an average than a median, so the most likely update was downward. I also adjusted the mortality rates downward somewhat, but I didn’t know how far, and the final update was further than I should have guessed. Lastly, a week ago the response was so abysmal that I think it was correct to have a factor of two worse expectation than I do now, just from failures to contain, treat, etc.
The one thing I wish I had done differently was weight South Korea’s numbers a little higher a little earlier, since priors were already on the side of lots of undiscovered/mild cases. I thought Wuhan’s testing was relatively good and things were partially adjusted for the missing cases, but I went like two weeks between looking at South Korea and that caused my numbers to lag somewhat. I think I could have been estimating 4-6 weeks as of a week ago, if I had flagged that better to come back to.
That mortality estimate seems a bit too low to me, Sarah Constantin estimated 0.1%-0.2% for someone below 40, so the lower end of that seems right to me.
The 0.1% mortality from lack of ventilators also seems too low to me. We might be a bit in luck in Bay Area since I think we are less likely to get it, but you should still expect that if you do get the virus, you get it when everyone else gets it, which means likely overwhelmed hospitals, and 0.1% mortality seems too low for that case. Sarah Constantin also estimates a total fatality rate of 1%-2% when hospitals are overwhelmed.
I don’t trust the numbers in the ICL report particularly much, since they are reliably lower than from other reputable sources, and I don’t actually see how they got numbers that were that low. I am currently reading through the study that they are basing their estimates on.