It’s hard to rationally support the burden that would accrue from that high level of precaution if you’re not in a vulnerable class[1]. The mortality rate of the 2019 coronavirus for twenty-somethings is not much higher than the mortality of influenza [2]. The financial burden of the activities you’re proposing, namely moving to another location are out of proportion to the minimal risk. Unless you’ve already taken other safety precautions (e.g. cryonics, longevity supplements) that have higher expected utility/cost, it is hard to justify the level of action you’re proposing for the risk coronavirus poses.
I understand that this post isn’t meant to explain why taking coronavirus precautions is a good idea, but rather to explain what precautions one should take assuming that taking precautions is rational. I think there should at least be a link to an explanation for why the precautions you suggest are rational. There is already a pinned post for users to post their advice on coronavirus and this post should be located there as an answer. Posting in a separate thread seems like an attempt to get around the justification requirement while still writing something that should probably be in that pinned thread.
I think some of your points are good, but I downvoted you specifically for the statement “not much higher than the mortality of influenza”, which appears to me to be extremely misleading. The linked reference notes that the currently-reported CFR is around 1.4%-2% (this ignores the WHO’s recent figure of 3.4%, but it’s not crucial either way), and that the CFR of seasonal influenza is around 0.1%. It then speculates that, under certain assumptions, the true CFR of COVID-19 “may be considerably less than 1%”. So, under certain speculative assumptions, the CFR “may” be less than ten times that of seasonal flu. I don’t think that reasonably justifies a declaration that it’s “not much higher.”
(I do think there’s a reasonable argument to be made here that the absolute rather than relative risk of death is still quite low, for young and healthy people. There are other risks worth considering, such as the risks to people who aren’t young and healthy; the risks to people who have close contact with people who aren’t young and healthy; and the risks of outcomes other than death, such as pneumonia, poorly-treated pneumonia due to an overwhelmed medical system, and possible long-term consequences which aren’t yet well-characterized.)
I was comparing mortality figures for the 20-29 age group. 2019 coronavirus mortality for 20-29yo’s is 0.2%.[1][2] Meaning that’s a worst-case statistic for the current situation. Mortality for seasonal influenza for confirmed cases in the same age group is .05%.[3]
You’re comparing the overall mortality rate when I specifically stated that I was only comparing the mortality rate for twenty-somethings. You then use that mistaken analysis, and a blatantly out-of-context quote, to conclude that I’m being extremely misleading.
Can you help me understand where in your link (3) I can derive your 0.05% figure? I do not see any figures for the 20-29 age group. The closest thing I see is “18-49”, and when I divide “deaths” by “symptomatic illnesses” for that group, I get 0.02%, which would presumably be an overestimate for the youngest decade of that wide range.
EDIT: Also, none of that was anywhere in your citation for that claim (not that I think claims are obliged to be cited, but since your post contained no numbers, I think it was completely reasonable of me to assume that the numbers in your own citation were the ones you were using.) Also, to be clear, if the relevant multiple is actually 4x, I still dispute that 4x is “not much higher.”
You can derive the .05% figure from deaths/medical visits for 18-49yo’s in 2018-2019 (2450/4,407,885 = .056%). That’s the same metric they use for COVID-19. There’s nobody that’s being counted as a confirmed coronavirus patient that’s not going for a medical visit. I couldn’t find data specifically about 20-29yo’s for seasonal influenza. You can argue that .05% to .2% is a massive difference if you want to, but it’s hardly extremely misleading to say that it’s not much higher.
I do not want to continue the pointless back and forth where you find potential inconsistencies in my claims, I explain why there are no inconsistencies, and then you find more potential inconsistencies. I rather just bet.
By end of spring 2020 COVID-19 will have caused no more deaths in the US than H1N1 had by end of summer 2009 (4,000 according to Wikipedia). I’ll take 1:1 odds on that. If you want to bet money I’ll go up to $50.
Well, my level of annoyance at you for making misleading and poorly-sourced claims is definitely coming to a middle.
Mildly annoying is your vague specification of “end of spring” as the endpoint. More annoyingly, after spending some time investigating your newest vaguely-sourced claim, I found that Wikipedia tells me—on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States—that the US had 593 deaths, as of September 3, 2009. Someone else helped me find https://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091112.htm, which gives an estimate of 3,900 as of October 17, which is still under 4,000 and implausibly late for “end of summer”. (I don’t think this is really material to the outcome of the bet, but it is a demonstration of exactly the same sorts of issues I’ve had with your previous comments.)
However, if you’re still willing to make the bet, still 1:1, using the actual figure of 593, and let’s specify May 31 as what seems to be the consensus last day of spring, I am happy to do that. $50 is fine, but it has been pointed out to me that betting on the coronavirus is considered to be in poor taste, which seems fair enough. So I ask that, if I win, my winnings be in the form of a donation to the Against Malaria Foundation, or another GiveWell top charity of your choice, with receipt provided. For your side, I would suggest something similar, but I will pay cash if you so desire.
Posting in a separate thread seems like an attempt to get around the justification requirement while still writing something that should probably be in that pinned thread.
Zvi posted this on his own blog, and the post was then crossposted here, so only posting it there was not an option with the current crossposting setup.
There’s an argument that hospitals will quickly be overwhelmed, and that without hospital beds and staff and equipment available, the fatality rate is much higher, at least 2% for young adults, and even higher still for other demographics. Do you disagree with that? If you accept that part, avoiding at least 2% risk of death is plausibly worth suffering months of disruption over I think, right? Not to mention that plenty of readers may not be young or healthy...
It’s hard to rationally support the burden that would accrue from that high level of precaution if you’re not in a vulnerable class[1]. The mortality rate of the 2019 coronavirus for twenty-somethings is not much higher than the mortality of influenza [2]. The financial burden of the activities you’re proposing, namely moving to another location are out of proportion to the minimal risk. Unless you’ve already taken other safety precautions (e.g. cryonics, longevity supplements) that have higher expected utility/cost, it is hard to justify the level of action you’re proposing for the risk coronavirus poses.
I understand that this post isn’t meant to explain why taking coronavirus precautions is a good idea, but rather to explain what precautions one should take assuming that taking precautions is rational. I think there should at least be a link to an explanation for why the precautions you suggest are rational. There is already a pinned post for users to post their advice on coronavirus and this post should be located there as an answer. Posting in a separate thread seems like an attempt to get around the justification requirement while still writing something that should probably be in that pinned thread.
The mean and median age of LW users is well without the older class that is vulnerable to coronavirus deaths. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/j9kxNcm2bM7A8XAc6/coronavirus-is-here
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article
I think some of your points are good, but I downvoted you specifically for the statement “not much higher than the mortality of influenza”, which appears to me to be extremely misleading. The linked reference notes that the currently-reported CFR is around 1.4%-2% (this ignores the WHO’s recent figure of 3.4%, but it’s not crucial either way), and that the CFR of seasonal influenza is around 0.1%. It then speculates that, under certain assumptions, the true CFR of COVID-19 “may be considerably less than 1%”. So, under certain speculative assumptions, the CFR “may” be less than ten times that of seasonal flu. I don’t think that reasonably justifies a declaration that it’s “not much higher.”
(I do think there’s a reasonable argument to be made here that the absolute rather than relative risk of death is still quite low, for young and healthy people. There are other risks worth considering, such as the risks to people who aren’t young and healthy; the risks to people who have close contact with people who aren’t young and healthy; and the risks of outcomes other than death, such as pneumonia, poorly-treated pneumonia due to an overwhelmed medical system, and possible long-term consequences which aren’t yet well-characterized.)
I was comparing mortality figures for the 20-29 age group. 2019 coronavirus mortality for 20-29yo’s is 0.2%.[1][2] Meaning that’s a worst-case statistic for the current situation. Mortality for seasonal influenza for confirmed cases in the same age group is .05%.[3]
You’re comparing the overall mortality rate when I specifically stated that I was only comparing the mortality rate for twenty-somethings. You then use that mistaken analysis, and a blatantly out-of-context quote, to conclude that I’m being extremely misleading.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 Look to Table 1.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
Can you help me understand where in your link (3) I can derive your 0.05% figure? I do not see any figures for the 20-29 age group. The closest thing I see is “18-49”, and when I divide “deaths” by “symptomatic illnesses” for that group, I get 0.02%, which would presumably be an overestimate for the youngest decade of that wide range.
EDIT: Also, none of that was anywhere in your citation for that claim (not that I think claims are obliged to be cited, but since your post contained no numbers, I think it was completely reasonable of me to assume that the numbers in your own citation were the ones you were using.) Also, to be clear, if the relevant multiple is actually 4x, I still dispute that 4x is “not much higher.”
You can derive the .05% figure from deaths/medical visits for 18-49yo’s in 2018-2019 (2450/4,407,885 = .056%). That’s the same metric they use for COVID-19. There’s nobody that’s being counted as a confirmed coronavirus patient that’s not going for a medical visit. I couldn’t find data specifically about 20-29yo’s for seasonal influenza. You can argue that .05% to .2% is a massive difference if you want to, but it’s hardly extremely misleading to say that it’s not much higher.
I do not want to continue the pointless back and forth where you find potential inconsistencies in my claims, I explain why there are no inconsistencies, and then you find more potential inconsistencies. I rather just bet.
By end of spring 2020 COVID-19 will have caused no more deaths in the US than H1N1 had by end of summer 2009 (4,000 according to Wikipedia). I’ll take 1:1 odds on that. If you want to bet money I’ll go up to $50.
Well, this comment sure seems to not have aged well. Did this bet ever pay out and resolve?
No, a bet was never made and accepted. You can see my reply to him as to why I didn’t accept his offer. He never replied to my counteroffer.
Future advice, “this comment sure seems to not have aged well” is not an effective way to open your comment when asking for information from somebody.
Well, my level of annoyance at you for making misleading and poorly-sourced claims is definitely coming to a middle.
Mildly annoying is your vague specification of “end of spring” as the endpoint. More annoyingly, after spending some time investigating your newest vaguely-sourced claim, I found that Wikipedia tells me—on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States—that the US had 593 deaths, as of September 3, 2009. Someone else helped me find https://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091112.htm, which gives an estimate of 3,900 as of October 17, which is still under 4,000 and implausibly late for “end of summer”. (I don’t think this is really material to the outcome of the bet, but it is a demonstration of exactly the same sorts of issues I’ve had with your previous comments.)
However, if you’re still willing to make the bet, still 1:1, using the actual figure of 593, and let’s specify May 31 as what seems to be the consensus last day of spring, I am happy to do that. $50 is fine, but it has been pointed out to me that betting on the coronavirus is considered to be in poor taste, which seems fair enough. So I ask that, if I win, my winnings be in the form of a donation to the Against Malaria Foundation, or another GiveWell top charity of your choice, with receipt provided. For your side, I would suggest something similar, but I will pay cash if you so desire.
Deal?
Zvi posted this on his own blog, and the post was then crossposted here, so only posting it there was not an option with the current crossposting setup.
There’s an argument that hospitals will quickly be overwhelmed, and that without hospital beds and staff and equipment available, the fatality rate is much higher, at least 2% for young adults, and even higher still for other demographics. Do you disagree with that? If you accept that part, avoiding at least 2% risk of death is plausibly worth suffering months of disruption over I think, right? Not to mention that plenty of readers may not be young or healthy...