Since your wife is a nurse, she’s much more likely to be exposed than the average UK resident. I also think even in her case you likely added an extra zero or 2 based on what I’m seeing while playing around with it.
I think what most people want is what’s my risk of death assuming I get it, not that multiplied times the risk of being infected within only the next 90 days.
Why not multiply by the probability that you don't die within the next 90 days from some other event, or the probability that the earth doesn't explode within 90 days.
The likelihood that you're infected is both too hard to calculate for a given individual to be useful and, based on current epidemiological models, close enough to 1 over the long term for unvaccinated people that it doesn't make much difference.
The probability used in the model presented is the probability that a random person in the UK will be infected given the same conditions seen in March of 2020 over a 90 day period. It's a useless number. Multiplying the IFR just destroys whatever useful information you could extract from the IFR in the first place.
You have: 1. Chance of getting a disease 2. Chance of dying from said disease once acquired
Both have numerous factors that affect the result.
What's the metrics look like when someone is hit with 2+ variants at once?
HIV is similar, where someone can be positive for 1 or more different strains. And their viral loads are cumulative.
The weird thing is that while the extent of my infection was that I had a bad sinus infection without fever for about 3 days. It greatly effected my cognition, besides temporarily (<1 day) losing my sense of smell I also experienced a loss of spatial/body awareness and was knocking things over which I never do even when sick, I was easily cognitively overwhelmed for about 10-15 days after my positive test, 11 days after my symptoms subsided.
I am a software engineer that a couple times of year may get halo migraines, the worst untreated migraines I've had caused a small decrease in cognition and working memory for almost a week, most migraines have little to no cognitiove effect.
This "mild" covid was by far the most systemic and far reaching cognitive impairment I've had, worse even then post surgery recovery involving deep general anesthesia. It effected working memory, ability to follow conversational threads & profoundly limited my available vocabulary, I was missing words, not simply fumbling for them, for several weeks.
It's an interesting virus to be sure, my generally unflappable fiancee was uncharacteristically worried by my erratic mental state, she was relieved I tested positive with covid as she had been worrying about a stroke or something.
Anecdotally... I would not recommend getting this virus if you are a knowledge worker.
What treatments did your doctor prescribe during the infection? Unfortunately many physicians still aren't treating it aggressively enough with monoclonal antibodies and other therapies.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ant...
I was out of town when I became infected so I was not able to procure monoclonal antibodies during the recommended period, the healthcare logistics were a pain (as they often are in the states). I of course took high bioavailability zinc, magnesium, vitamin d, vitamin c, etc, etc.
If you're asking that I provide actionable advice I would suggest these things in so far as I'm qualified to make any suggestions.
1. get vaccinated
2. keep an oxygen meter on hand or use the one on your phone
3. keep a home antigen test on hand
4. if you test positive throw whatever your doctor recommends at it
5. When traveling wear a comfortable silicon respirator with a good fit.
6. It would be nice to have a nasal spray vaccine, it was very clear during my infection that covid was not able to find purchase outside of my heads mucosal... zone? region? it seems like a nasal spray booster that targets strengthening the immune response of that part of your body might be of enormous benefit to prevent these cognitive effects in mild cases.
The study I linked finds 27.9% incidence of "confusion/brain fog/trouble focusing attention" and 20.7% incidence of short-term memory loss 8 months after symptomatic COVID infection (confirmed with antibody testing), compared to 14.7% and 5.6% respectively in the control group (who tested negative for COVID antibodies).
I don't know or really care if "long COVID" is the right term for what those folks are experiencing, but that result has real practical significance and the rates are way higher than 1%. The same study also finds significant incidence rates for lots of other symptoms that could reasonably fit under the "long COVID" umbrella.
After more than a year, I still haven't recovered my full lung function. As soon as I get in a room with AC I start to cough, and my lungs are sensitive to cold weather .
It may be 'just' 1 percent... But darn it sucks to win that lottery.
A better measure would be similar to Expected Utility: 1% multiplied by the 'loss' value of living the rest of your life fucked up.
that's nearly all of npr (and nyt) now, especially the covid-related news that's 50+% of npr stories. i can no longer stomach more than their 10-minute hourly news summary on the radio these days.
I have no idea how you got fear-mongering from that article, though. My impress was that it's a reality check on what the vaccine is capable of and what one individual's breakthrough looks like.
This is a single first-hand account, was subject to publication bias, and a relatively bad breakthrough case.
Title of the article: "I got 'Mild' Breakthrough Case".
By definition, it is not a mild case. Any reasonable definition of mildness would not include the terms "My eyeballs ache" and "103 degree fever".
The article implies that even the mild case of COVID has horrifying symptomps which it goes into great detail to painfully exemplify. This is misleading. Absolutely despicable journalism, if you ask me.
Was the calculator developed before Delta? Does it already include a factor for your chances of catching it, or is it the risk after you have caught Covid? So many glaring issues - it isn't designed to be informative to the general public.
We can take this stupid premise to its logical end and never do anything out of fear that we might eventually harm someone else, but that's not how life has gone on for millennia. We have the vaccine which is the solution, by and large the data supports that the sustained overreaction is now disproportionate to the actual risks, time to let the science we supposedly all believe in aka natural selection run its course.
There are people who don't have kids of their own because of the high risk of passing potentially fatal genetic defects to their children. If you are an at risk epileptic, driving regularly is something you should avoid.
If an you are contemplating an activity that has a significant risk of causing harm to others, you have a moral obligation to consider if the benefits are big enough to be worth that risk.
If you have a higher than average level of contact with vulnerable populations, you should take higher than normal precautions to reduce your chances of infection. This is just basic moral common sense.
The US in general has super lax driving tests. Here in Denmark it's about 3 months of theoretical classes side-by-side with driving with a certified driving instructor. We also learn the basics of cars on a closed track, and later learn to drive in slippery conditions on the same closed tracks. The closed-track tests include being able to catch the car after pulling the handbrake in a turn while going 80 km/h (50 mph).
Oh, and to actually get your license you also have to drive 45 minutes with a police official checking your every move.
We are a somewhat globalized civilization and the same as this security theatre about keeping airports open with countries with 2% vaccination rate can be said about driving.
Also, the whole test seems to be set up like a gold rush for lawyers - if you actually managed to slide the car and roll over at 50 mph you are almost certain to have some injuries not to mention the damage to the car. Who is liable for those, the government that ordered the driver to execute a dangerous maneuver in order to obtain a driving license? What if the driver dies from the injuries?
Yes, that's what will happen if you brake the rear wheels (what the handbrake does) in a turn.
The point isn't that you'd ever do that, of course, but to simulate the rear end of the car sliding which can happen if you hit ice, oil or even uneven water patches. Can you control that slide? It's really awesome if Denmark is including car control in the test. The US should do the same.
I strongly encourage you (everyone) to find a car control clinic in your area and participate. Even a single weekend will raise your car control skills significantly if you've never had any instruction before.
Newer cars have a lot of traction control magic that try to save you and often do, but there's still no substitute for the driver having skills as well.
Sure the DMV manual will tell you to steer into the skid, but there's no way to learn this muscle memory without practice and the most productive practice is with a good instructor.
(I used to instruct the BMW club car control clinics (open to all cars) before life got too busy, hopefully will take it up again in the future.)
> Also, the whole test seems to be set up like a gold rush for lawyers
OP said this was in Denmark, so presumably every little thing isn't a "gold rush for lawyers" unlike in the USA.
And I have not seen a car where a handbrake could lock wheels even on idle, least on driving in gear at 50 mph. I don't doubt such breaks exist, rally cars supposed to have them, but on my car, for instance, all that is going to happen if I pull the handbrake flap in gear is nothing and if I hold it for 5 seconds it will do an emergency stop using its ESC,ABS and all kinds of smart technology (I think it's also supposed to move to the shoulder and turn on hazards but I never really tried it). It won't slide for sure. How am I supposed to pass a test like that? Rent a 500K rally car?
>OP said this was in Denmark, so presumably every little thing isn't a "gold rush for lawyers" unlike in the USA
People can just kill themselves on orders from government in Denmark? Sounds like the country not to take as an example to me.
An upgraded handbrake doesn't seem far-fetched.
Mind you, you don't need to lock the rear wheels to induce oversteer (rear sliding out).
All you need to do is to make the rear wheel braking force be higher than the front wheel braking force while turning. Which in this case, since there is zero braking force on the front wheels, doesn't take much at all. A very quick pull on the handbrake will do it.
If you ever drive a race car with an adjustable brake bias control (changes percentage of braking force front/rear) it's easy to experience it doesn't take much rear bias to induce a spin if braking in a turn, even though none of the wheels ever lock.
Which one specifically? I've never encountered one and a brief web search didn't find any. I'm sure it can exist, but seems exceedingly rare at best.
I mean this in the most encouraging way possible: your comments (this and previous) suggest you have zero experience with car control. I greatly encourage you to find and participate in a few car control clinics to see how cars actually behave on the edge of adhesion and beyond. It's a great learning experience and also just fun. Most importantly, if you ever do hit ice/oil/etc, it might just save you from a crash.
> People can just kill themselves on orders from government in Denmark?
No need to be silly. Surely these tests are done in a suitable location, and there's zero risk from a bit of a slide or spin. Again, something you could experience and learn in a car control class so it stops becoming scary.
> No need to be silly. Surely these tests are done in a suitable location
My tests were done in the middle of a former cold war airstrip. This link should show the complex in a satellite view: https://www.google.com/maps/place/K%C3%B8reteknisk+Anl%C3%A6...
Notice the darker patch of tarmac. That is extra-slippery when wet and has a sprinkler system on the grass next to it.
And thanks for your concern about my car control, you don't seem to be talking about the things I mentioned though: the lack of parking brakes on many cars and the lack of parking brake capable to lock wheels on many more. I am not going to go to your clinic anyways so if you don't want to talk on the topic I will bow out.
Besides, you just informed me that spinning out is completely safe and won't harm me so why again I need to train for that?
> Besides, you just informed me that spinning out is completely safe and won't harm me so why again I need to train for that?
You're not discussing in good faith so I won't continue.
Spinning out in a training facility (generally a large parking lot) is perfectly safe, it's a training area. Spinning out in traffic on a windy road, not so much. That's why you should train first in a safe space with instructors, before driving on public roads.
Spinning out at 50 mph is not safe anywhere as you can easily rollover, I pity people who go into your clinic as you don't seem to have a slightest clue.
Sounds good to me. Let's require regular re-testing while we're at it.
Similarly I think people should consider the risk to others if they get this pathogen rather than just the risk to themselves.
The solution is to get rid of cars as a primary mode of transport, and I really do think we should do that!
1: https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-overconfident-...
This really isn't remotely analogous, particularly since you absolutely can know you're at risk of spreading COVID.
Your version applies to cars too! By driving a car, you are at risk of causing a car crash!
With COVID, you can. Pretty easily.
Certainly, anyone who receives a positive PCR test for COVID should quarantine ASAP. But if you're incubating COVID, but not infectious yet, the tests will return negative. A test only tells you whether you were infectious at the time of the test, so by the time you've seen the results, the information is already outdated.
No. That wouldn't be a particularly useful statement.
Dismissing the aggregate risks solely based on your own is short sighted.
It's not like we are aware that there are certain drivers that are 100x more likely to kill certain members of the population.
And if we were aware that certain ways of driving made you 100x more likely to kill someone, people would AT LEAST be talking about banning them.
Like, if teenagers could drive around drunk just find and not kill themselves or other teenagers somehow - they probably wouldn't care if only old, sick people ended up dead from their driving. People would probably make rules or at least talk about making rules to prevent this.
But that's not how driving really works.
the treatment risk calculation is also entirely different, since "someone with a much, much greater risk of death" is already flirting with death in other material ways.
also, no assumption was involved, just the simple logic of multiplying two tiny numbers resulting in another tiny number.
For a more expected assessment of "risk of dying if I have covid", you can use this:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
Although it only shows "<0.1%" for anyone under 40s, so it doesn't break things down that fine (better for hospitalizations).
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
My wife is a nurse and doesn’t follow up the data and she was in disbelief that her “risk” of serious/death was around 0.00005% or somewhere near that.