The data is based on adjusted results from Wuhan which would suggest… what? I would think that under Lockdown conditions you would get more in home infections? Perhaps we are working with estimates of hospitalisation risk that already account for a large fraction of cases being high viral dose.
If there’s a really really large difference between high and low viral dose risk, but only half the exposure in Wuhan was high dose (as in the OPs example) , then as a rough approximation you should multiply those risks by 2 if you’re high dosed.
That story could fit some of the data we’ve seen, especially doctors and care homes, but imply groups of young healthy people have much less to fear, as they just expose each other to mild or asymptomatic illness and don’t make each other much sicker.
Hanson argued that viral load before and after Lockdown was the main factor affecting differing fatality rates between countries and I agree with the OP that this probably isn’t the case. As additional evidence, we can see that the death rates for under 50s seem to be more consistent between countries than those over 50, https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/03/COVID-CFR-by-age-768x595.png. That’s harder to fit with the viral load story, unless we assume older people are more sensitive to differences in viral load
How much is the data we’re currently working off of influenced by high/low viral load effects? This table from Imperial college seems to contain the hospitalisation risk estimates by age that everyone has converged on: https://mobile.twitter.com/anderssandberg/status/1239923496916058112.
The data is based on adjusted results from Wuhan which would suggest… what? I would think that under Lockdown conditions you would get more in home infections? Perhaps we are working with estimates of hospitalisation risk that already account for a large fraction of cases being high viral dose.
If there’s a really really large difference between high and low viral dose risk, but only half the exposure in Wuhan was high dose (as in the OPs example) , then as a rough approximation you should multiply those risks by 2 if you’re high dosed.
Second, one of Rob Wiblin’s sources suggested that the dominant effect might not be at home vs outside but a virtuous or vicious circle—severe illnesses release more virus and are more likely to provoke severe illness in the same household, while mild illness provokes mild illness: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=887350766835&id=204401235&anchor_composer=false#
That story could fit some of the data we’ve seen, especially doctors and care homes, but imply groups of young healthy people have much less to fear, as they just expose each other to mild or asymptomatic illness and don’t make each other much sicker.
Hanson argued that viral load before and after Lockdown was the main factor affecting differing fatality rates between countries and I agree with the OP that this probably isn’t the case. As additional evidence, we can see that the death rates for under 50s seem to be more consistent between countries than those over 50, https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/03/COVID-CFR-by-age-768x595.png. That’s harder to fit with the viral load story, unless we assume older people are more sensitive to differences in viral load