How can they ask that question? Like which probability would you assign some random 40 yr old having dinner with his 70 yr old mom?
Are the people who are sure their family gathering is worth the risk going to isolate themselves after the gathering until they’re sure they didn’t catch it?
Because, if not, it isn’t only the people making the decision who are going to be taking the risk.
The problem is that she risks not only herself, but others.
The choices she’s making? No. Yours is an ignorant comment.
Which post is that addressed to?
Tell me the odds of him infecting her if he is infectious and I’ll have a pretty good answer to your question. Since it’s one on one, my initial guess would be around 1 in 4000 (assumes about 0.5% of the population is infectious at any given time, that if he’s infectious it will be passed to her, and an IFR of her at around 5%), but that assumes that they are dining privately in one of their homes with no other parties present. At a restaurant, the odds go up, possibly dramatically. With other family members, up again, possibly exponentially.
Where do you get .5% infectious from?
Documented active cases in the US are currently just below 1% and I just picked half of them as currently infectious, which is actually a bit conservative. Considering that the actual number of active cases is likely drastically higher than that, I consider my .5% very conservative.
How are you coming up with those numbers?
My run at them.
Current rate of confirmed new infections/d in the US is something like 150/m. Let’s say contagious two days before symptoms or diagnosed and a tenfold undercount. 3000/m or 3 per 1000 chance of someone being potentially contagious. Even in household contacts most do not get infected. The risk is really of a superspreader individual. That’s one in ten people who would possibly infect several at the event vs the others who would likely infect none. So 3 in 10000 of spreading at the event to maybe several people. Of those several people none likely in nursing homes but some with some risk factors no doubt. Average IFR likely 0.3% or less? So risk maybe 0.003*0.001=0.000003 or 3 per million of being unknowingly infected or noticeably ill and causing death.
3 per million is not zero. But it is not one in 50 or one in a thousand.
That post was in response to @Czarcasm. Offensively ignorant.
Unless people are only contagious for two days, your math doesn’t work, but I’ll use your numbers instead of active cases from worldometer (which was 2.6 million or so yesterday). 150/m per day reported with a tenfold undercount gives us 492,000 new cases per day. With a very conservative 10 day infectivity window, we have 4.92 million people who are infectious at any given time. That’s 1.5% of the population and 3 times higher than my .5% number.
We actually have no idea if that is true.. The household secondary attack rate numbers from the studies ranged between 4.6% to 90%.
For his 70 year old mom? Really?
My actual quick and dirty guess was 1 in 4000 for this scenario, but it could easily be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000. What it’s not is 1 in 333,333. Still want to stand by 3 per million?
For saying
?
How is that offensively ignorant? (says the person who said basically the same thing, post 202.)
FYI, the CDC director is saying that small gatherings are one of the primary drivers of COVID-19 spread now.
You are making very incorrect assumptions.
First you assume that “I” (or some other hypothetical “you”) would go to an event acutely symptomatic. I instead assume that we are dealing with "you"s who would stay home from Thanksgiving if they have a fever, are actively coughing, or are otherwise symptomatic, diagnosed or not.
The big risk of contagion at Thanksgiving is driven in those presymptomatic phase, the one to three days before symptoms show up. Contagiousness then drops off pretty fast after a day or so of illness. (It is still completely unclear what fractional contagiousness those who are persistently asymptomatic are but it is a fraction.) To include everyone throughout their symptomatic phases in this calculation is a huge error.
Actually even at the time of that August letter to the editor we knew this is true. Outlier studies existed but the pooled rate then was under 30%, clearly MOST household contacts NOT getting infected by evidence published by then. The numbers since then in larger studies have included a SAR of under 12% in 59,000 close household contacts in South Korea, and in a study of over 575,000 contacts in India the rate for close household contacts was under 11%.
The latter study confirmed what had already been seen about superspreaders. Most of those infected do not spread the germ at all while a relatively few spread it highly effectively. Anecdotally it is what I am seeing as well: a dozen or so household exposures with no one in the household getting infected, then a household with two to four contacts in the household with positive tests. Uncommon to be just one household contact positive. Common to be none.
So yes I’ll stand by the very rough estimate of a 0.0003 chance of the typical person being one of those effective transmitters.
Your post was discussing “the question that people should be asking”. It sounded general case. Specifically for an over 70 year old mom? General case over 70 year old without pre-existing health conditions the data suggests the IFR will likely not exceed 1% per University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 0.0003*0.01 = 0.000003. Three out of a million chance for her alone. Of course more if there are several over 70 year old aunts and uncles, as an effective spreader might infect them all in one go, just an ineffective spreader would likely infect none. The bigger the event the bigger the impact.
For @Irishman’s case? His sister, his college nephew, his over 80 Dad and uncle. Two over 80 years old so double the three to six per million that his staying away would reduce their risk by. A long way away from one per thousand or even ten thousand.
Let’s be clear though - there will be lots of these small gatherings, and some not so small. Small numbers time many many events adds up to a sizable absolute number. But uncle and dad saying that that risk is worth that benefit to them? Some might even say that for one in ten thousand.
He knows nothing about what my mother-in-law is doing other than my saying “Her explicit thought process is that the current quality of life difference is worth the risks she takes. Living longer appeals to her less than living better.” His talking shit about her, based on what he imagines she might be doing with whom, is offensive, ignorant, and incorrect.
Common for people on this board to do, yes. Anyone less rigid than they are is reckless to others in their mind. Fuck that shit.
I didn’t talk shit about anybody. BTW, nice rewrite, but the words I responded to were these: “My mother-in-law is 83. I’m not begrudging her choices to have some social contacts. Her explicit thought process is that the current quality of life difference is worth the risks she takes. Living longer appeals to her less than living better. Her decision to make.”
Again I say that she not only risks herself. She risks others. Neither her age nor her willingness to brave risks will reduce the risk she will pose to others if she becomes a carrier.
What of what she is doing do you think is putting others at risks? What sort of risk? Be specific please.
Heck even for @Irishman’s uncle- what inordinate risk to others is he imposing by being willing to come out to see his brother, niece, nephew, and great nephew?
True any one taking a breath anywhere might be putting others at risk, aerosols and all.
Seal yourself in an airtight jar for all I care if you feel that is socially responsible.
Novel to call an exact quote a rewrite btw.
I’m confused. The quote in the box is exactly what you put in quotation marks. What was rewritten?
edit: DSeid mentioned it while I was posting. Never mind.
I said it made me uncomfortable, I didn’t say I was deciding for him or keeping him from coming.
Well, a truncated quote. “Her decision to make,” was the part to which he objected, the part you omitted in post 214.
To be explicit, also include my 79 year old mom and my brother-in-law, who likely has a higher exposure than I do, because he makes riskier choices. He runs billiards tournaments in bars 2 nights a week, in crowds that likely are less concerned. And he’s mentally over covid, ready to go back to eating out at restaurants and the like. I’m not sure he even wears his mask at the tournaments.
@DSeid Your language and tone towards @Czarcasm was rude and offensive, unreasonably harsh and overly hot reactive. I cringed at it. And then you persisted in repeating the vituperative language. Key here: respond without being a jerk. Respond in kind. I had the same thought, the exact thought, that Czarcasm did.
Fait that. Some though I know want to decide for others in that circumstance. For example I speak to parents whose first impulse is not not let their parents see the grandkids, even distanced outside, for the current and foreseeable future, or their own good. And some who deign to opine on choices others make when they know nothing about those choices.
No, the decision she makes is what he objects to. Knowing nothing more about what she does than what I shared. But if that was what he objected to, well it aint anyone else’s to make, including mine.
Yes, the more there, especially who are above average risk for vulnerability, increases the risk your being there adds by putting more at risk. And your personal choice about the risk you are willing to take might be influenced by the knowledge of how your brother-in-law behaves.
Also again, small risks multiplied by millions of small gatherings adds up. There’s lots more small gatherings than huge ones …
That said innumerate takes on the risks is not the way to make the argument.
@BippityBoppityBoo thank you for your moderation help and input! And have a great day!