Forty percent [of studied SARS survivors] reported some degree of chronic fatigue and 27 percent met diagnostic criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome; people with fatigue symptoms were also more likely than those without them to have psychiatric disorders. For comparison, far less than one percent of Americans met chronic fatigue syndrome criteria, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although many more than that have symptoms.
It’s important to know to what extend similar problems might appear with this coronavirus.
I certainly agree but that information will only be known with a much longer delay than either the case fatality rate (which will initially be over estimated) and the infection rate (which will be under estimated). So that doesn’t really help with how we should initially react to any new outbreak. Seems like we want to understand the date that is available early to assess the risks and therefore policy actions. How we present the data (and I don’t get to see what any of the big bureaucracies use) seems to matter. This may be due to subject experts being who actually generates the data but non-experts have to understand the implications.
I would really like to see COVID-19 used as a case study for the Information Hazards theory.
It will be hard to be certain about the long-term effects and the likelihood of CFS but at the same time it’s quite plausible to estimate the value even when uncertainty is larger then we like.
Death rates are not the only thing we should be worried about. SARS lead to long-term problems for survivors:
It’s important to know to what extend similar problems might appear with this coronavirus.
I certainly agree but that information will only be known with a much longer delay than either the case fatality rate (which will initially be over estimated) and the infection rate (which will be under estimated). So that doesn’t really help with how we should initially react to any new outbreak. Seems like we want to understand the date that is available early to assess the risks and therefore policy actions. How we present the data (and I don’t get to see what any of the big bureaucracies use) seems to matter. This may be due to subject experts being who actually generates the data but non-experts have to understand the implications.
I would really like to see COVID-19 used as a case study for the Information Hazards theory.
It will be hard to be certain about the long-term effects and the likelihood of CFS but at the same time it’s quite plausible to estimate the value even when uncertainty is larger then we like.