This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-antibodies-test.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| There Are More Cases Than We Thought. Is That Good News? | There Are More Cases Than We Thought. Is That Good News? |
| (5 months later) | |
| This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday. | This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday. |
| My first reaction to the news that the coronavirus seems to have spread more widely than initially understood — potentially to 20 percent of New York City residents, for example — was optimism. | My first reaction to the news that the coronavirus seems to have spread more widely than initially understood — potentially to 20 percent of New York City residents, for example — was optimism. |
| If more people have had the virus, it means that its death rate is lower. That’s just math. We have a decent idea of how many people have died from the virus. If the total pool of people who have had it is larger than the early estimates suggested, the chances that any individual patient will die from it are, by definition, smaller — closer to about 0.5 percent on average, instead of 3 or 4 percent, as initially seemed possible. | If more people have had the virus, it means that its death rate is lower. That’s just math. We have a decent idea of how many people have died from the virus. If the total pool of people who have had it is larger than the early estimates suggested, the chances that any individual patient will die from it are, by definition, smaller — closer to about 0.5 percent on average, instead of 3 or 4 percent, as initially seemed possible. |
| But as I spent some time talking to public health experts yesterday, my optimism faded. The new statistics still suggest that the overall death toll could be catastrophic, and on the high end of the range of the various statistical models. | But as I spent some time talking to public health experts yesterday, my optimism faded. The new statistics still suggest that the overall death toll could be catastrophic, and on the high end of the range of the various statistical models. |
| How could that be? There are two main reasons. | How could that be? There are two main reasons. |
| One, the fact that more people may have already had the virus also suggests that it’s more contagious than the initial numbers suggested — that any one person with the virus tends to pass it to a greater number of others. And if it’s more contagious, it may be harder to contain in coming months. As society begins to reopen, the virus could spread more quickly. The number of Americans who get it before a vaccine is developed would then be larger. | One, the fact that more people may have already had the virus also suggests that it’s more contagious than the initial numbers suggested — that any one person with the virus tends to pass it to a greater number of others. And if it’s more contagious, it may be harder to contain in coming months. As society begins to reopen, the virus could spread more quickly. The number of Americans who get it before a vaccine is developed would then be larger. |
| Two, even if the death rate is lower than feared, it’s still very high. “It is still, with these new findings, many times more deadly than influenza,” Caitlin Rivers, an epidemic researcher at Johns Hopkins University, told me. The best current guess is that the death rate for coronavirus is about five times higher than that of seasonal influenza. | Two, even if the death rate is lower than feared, it’s still very high. “It is still, with these new findings, many times more deadly than influenza,” Caitlin Rivers, an epidemic researcher at Johns Hopkins University, told me. The best current guess is that the death rate for coronavirus is about five times higher than that of seasonal influenza. |
| A few basic calculations show how scary a 0.5 percent death rate is. If about one in three Americans ultimately get the virus — or 110 million people — more than 500,000 would die. If 200 million people get it, 1 million would die. | A few basic calculations show how scary a 0.5 percent death rate is. If about one in three Americans ultimately get the virus — or 110 million people — more than 500,000 would die. If 200 million people get it, 1 million would die. |
| Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania pointed out to me that about 20 percent of virus fatalities so far in the United States have been among people aged between 35 and 64. If the total number of deaths ends up in the ranges I’ve mentioned here, the virus could end up being the No. 1 killer of people in that age group, surpassing both cancer and heart disease. | Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania pointed out to me that about 20 percent of virus fatalities so far in the United States have been among people aged between 35 and 64. If the total number of deaths ends up in the ranges I’ve mentioned here, the virus could end up being the No. 1 killer of people in that age group, surpassing both cancer and heart disease. |
| The latest news, Emanuel said, “doesn’t make any of the goals you want to reach easier.” | The latest news, Emanuel said, “doesn’t make any of the goals you want to reach easier.” |
| As I’ve written before, it’s likely that we have a long and very difficult fight ahead of us. | As I’ve written before, it’s likely that we have a long and very difficult fight ahead of us. |
| For more … | For more … |
| Jared Baeten, a vice dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, offered this perspective on the virus’s spread, in an email: | Jared Baeten, a vice dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, offered this perspective on the virus’s spread, in an email: |
| Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute, writing about two studies that suggested a wider than expected spread of infections in California: “This probably aligns with what overall national exposure may be, on order of about 5 percent once we do wide serology … The data so far suggest that nationally, total exposure is still low.” | Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute, writing about two studies that suggested a wider than expected spread of infections in California: “This probably aligns with what overall national exposure may be, on order of about 5 percent once we do wide serology … The data so far suggest that nationally, total exposure is still low.” |
| If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook. | If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook. |
| Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. | Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. |