[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Stanford Epidemiologist: Coronavirus Data Unreliable; Lockdowns, Etc., Could Be Counterproductive A top epidemiologist says the lack of sound data and evidence on the extent of the coronavirus pandemic might lead to catastrophically poor decisions on the part of politicians and public health officials. John P.A. Ioannidis, a doctor, epidemiologist, and co-director of Stanford’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, warned this week that “we are making decisions without reliable data” that could lead to disastrous results including civil unrest and war. Epidemiology is a field concerned not with curing diseases per se, but instead the data-driven study of why and how far they spread and who gets them. In fact, he wrote at STAT, a website devoted to science journalism, despite the daily tally of increasing cases, the majority of infections have likely been missed, which means public safety and health measures taken so far might, long term, be counterproductive. Data Unreliable The “once-in-a-century pandemic ... may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco,” he wrote of the battle against COVID-19, the name given to the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Despite the rapid spread of the disease, Ioannidis wrote, neither scientists nor politicians have enough hard data to make the policy decisions they have made: We lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact. Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries. If the pandemic dissipates — either on its own or because of these measures — short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable. How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated? How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm? Vaccines or affordable treatments take many months (or even years) to develop and test properly. Given such timelines, the consequences of long-term lockdowns are entirely unknown. One reason the lockdowns might be a bad idea, again, is the lack of reliable data about how many people actually have the disease. Those numbers are “utterly unreliable,” he wrote, and most infections are not being recorded, despite the daily counts from top scientific institutions. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300 [emphasis added]. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population. This evidence fiasco creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future. Using the “closed population” on the Diamond Princess cruise ship as starting point, and accounting for the age of the deceased and their possible underlying health problems, Ioannidis concluded that “reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%.” A difficulty in measuring the death from SARS-CoV-2 is this: even “mild” coronaviruses that cause colds might cause ‘several thousands of deaths every year worldwide, though the vast majority of them are not documented with precise testing. Instead, they are lost as noise among 60 million deaths from various causes every year.” As well, he wrote, “in some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed. A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.” Lockdowns Might Backfire Ioannidis believes regular, random testing is the only way to estimate the prevalence of the Chinese Virus...... Poster Comment: People are being very realistic or very foolish. I just ventured into civilization (the PO and supermarket) for the 1st time since since the real furor began. Ppl were going quite normally about their biznis and not a mask or plastic glove in sight. I'd say the store was mebbe 1/3 fuller than normal for a Friday eve -- sailed right thru an empty checkout line. Some shelves had notable gaps where ppl had raided a particular product but were otherwise normal. Are we showing a good instinct against BS here or simply resigned to our fate? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||