A few weeks ago, a co-editor and I wrote about COVID-19. I myself wrote a second article, which a publisher preferred not to publish. These articles were written on 21 and 27 March. We and I said various things, some of which were not being discussed at the time, but are widely discussed now, and even implemented:
* The latest statistics from Germany (Statista) show that COVID-19 was present in 0.103% of fatalities under 60. According to other statistics (Deutsche Welle), 84.6% of infections were missed. That may reduce 0.103% to 0.016%. This does not appear to include primary cause of death (was it COVID-19 or something else?) In Africa, it is obviously significant that most countries have a median age of 20 and under.
• We don't have meaningful statisticsAnd so on. Incidentally the 21 March article (for Philosophical Investigations 23 March) was re-published by the Gatwick City Times (7 April). OBSERVATION: But a few weeks ago, our ideas were fairly out of step. Now they are all over, except perhaps for the second-last point. And we still don't have meaningful statistics.
• Population wide testing is impractical
• We need unbiased samples
• This will likely reveal a lower fatality rate *
• We need an exit strategy
• This will be risk-based
• It will restore economic life
• It will serve emotional needs
• It will be applied before the danger passes
* The latest statistics from Germany (Statista) show that COVID-19 was present in 0.103% of fatalities under 60. According to other statistics (Deutsche Welle), 84.6% of infections were missed. That may reduce 0.103% to 0.016%. This does not appear to include primary cause of death (was it COVID-19 or something else?) In Africa, it is obviously significant that most countries have a median age of 20 and under.
No comments:
Post a Comment