In other words, the science increasingly shows that the measures we have taken in the last few weeks have been both harmful—with freedoms lost, money spent, livelihoods destroyed—and pointless.
This statement will provoke outrage. Most will insist that it is not true. But a study from the Oise region of France found an infection rate of 25 percent—which, if it is true for France as a whole, suggests that the virus fatality rate in that country (which is considered hard-hit) is 0.13 percent. Studies of Santa Clara and Los Angeles County likewise show rates of infection far higher than experts imagined possible, indicating fatality rates of 0.1-0.2 percent, again in line with Ioannidis’s analysis. A study of women at a New York hospital who gave birth during the pandemic, and a study of a homeless shelter in Boston, likewise point to a disease far more widespread than testing has identified—and therefore with a far lower fatality rate than previously thought.
Researchers reported that more than 30 percent of the densely populated town of Chelsea in the Boston area likely already had the virus. There the death toll has been significant, leading to higher fatality rates, though still within the range identified by Ioannidis. The same holds for studies done in Delaware and Miami, as well as Geneva, Switzerland.
In epidemiology, nothing is certain. The facts may change in the future. But as of now, this much is certain: Current data point to a disease that is far less deadly than was feared when our country hurled itself over the cliff of mass lockdown. The WHO was at that time issuing warnings that presumed a death rate 20-30 times higher than what now appears realistic.
Now, we face another, even greater problem: how to sensibly re-enter normal life. This must be based on what we now know, not on worst-case projections, using facts and fundamental medical knowledge, not fear or single-vision policies.
First, we know the risk of dying from COVID-19 is far lower than initially thought, and not significant for the overwhelming majority of those infected.
Multiple recent studies from Iceland, Germany, USC, Stanford and New York City all suggest that the fatality rate if infected is likely far lower than early estimates, perhaps under 0.1 to 0.4 percent, i.e., 10 to 40 times lower than estimates that motivated extreme isolation.
In the Big Apple, with almost one-third of all US deaths, the rate of death for all people ages 18 to 45 is 0.01 percent, or 13 per 100,000 in the population, one-eightieth of the rate for people age 75 and over. For people under 18, the rate of death is zero per 100,000. Of Empire State fatalities, almost two-thirds were over 70 years of age. And regardless of age, if you don’t already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small. Of 7,959 NYC COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions, 99.2 percent had an underlying illness.
Deaths from COVID-19 are even more skewed in favor of the young. Those who are 24 or younger have about one chance in a million of dying from COVID-19 (almost too small to measure). Those who are 65 or over have about one chance in 1,250 of dying from COVID-19 — a very small fraction of all of the other things that will kill them.
Recent studies have shown that the virus is far more widespread, far less lethal, and probably started much earlier than previously thought. Given that tens of millions have been exposed and infected without even knowing it, makes the idea of trying to trace who infected who a fool’s errand. Studies are now showing that sunlight kills the virus. (Golly, who would even guess that sunlight and fresh air would be healthy?)
Imposing public health measures is not an all-or-nothing choice. There must be an ongoing evaluation of interventions that detect infections, limit viral transmission, and minimize the number of deaths. We must continue expanding viral testing and contact tracing to identify infected people who must be isolated. As COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths peak and decline, it is time to consider moving to less comprehensive mitigation measures that narrowly target the most vulnerable, with flexibility for different situations and geographic areas.
New data indicates that COVID-19 is far less lethal than feared and far more dangerous for certain groups than others. Early studies overestimated fatality ratios because the denominator (the number of infected people) was derived from testing only the sickest patients who were most likely to die, leaving those with mild or no symptoms uncounted. More recent data from California, New York, and Europe suggests that most infections are asymptomatic and go undetected. A new study of random samples in New York State reports at least 13.9% of the population were infected, recovered, and now have antibodies. The figure was higher (21.2%) in the hot spot New York City. These figures are undoubtedly low since it takes two to three weeks to develop antibodies, and people infected in the past few weeks will not yet test positive.
While the reliability of some early antibody tests has been widely questioned, researchers in New York have worked in recent weeks to develop and validate their own antibody tests, with federal approval. State officials believe that accurate antibody testing is seen as a critical tool to help determine when and how to begin restarting the economy, and sending people back to work.
“The testing also can tell you the infection rate in the population — where it’s higher, where it’s lower — to inform you on a reopening strategy,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Then when you start reopening, you can watch that infection rate to see if it’s going up and if it’s going up, slow down.”
By GILLIAN FLACCUS - Associated Press - Tuesday, April 28, 2020
For millions of people around the world dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, sleep brings no relief.
The horrors of COVID-19, and the surreal and frightening ways it has upended daily life, are infecting dreams and exposing feelings of fear, loss, isolation and grief that transcend culture, language and national boundaries.
