COVID19 - What we know, think we know, or want others to think we know

[bennevisplace]

"More or Less" on BBC Radio 4 is "the show that uses numbers to explore and explain the world around us". What it really does is dissect and correct the 'facts' and figures behind the news headlines. This morning's episode from 09:00 to 09:30 BST - about Covid19 - was something of a classic. For the next week at least, you (in the UK at least) can listen again on bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j

Also, how in Europe and the USA we still have no good estimate of the prevalence of the disease, i.e. what proportion of the population have actually been infected by the virus (only some Far East nations have done enough testing to have some kind of estimate), or as a consequence the infection mortality rate. The limited studies that have been done (e.g. Stanford University's, which suggested an infection rate 50-85 times the official figures) suffer from selection bias. Bigger and better national studies are in progress, but it could take 12 months for reliable data to emerge.

Should we be concerned that on both sides of the Atlantic we are preparing to unlock the lockdown without such data? And with no widely effective medicine or vaccine in sight? And with daily cases still on the rise in distinct parts of the population? And without fully understanding either the pathology of the disease or how it transmits?

Most of what we think we know is nicely summarised in this review paper ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

Now here's an example of how Covid can debunk scientific dogma. Two patients infected with the Covid19 virus who each sustained classic Covid lung damage, widely believed to be a later-stage phenomenon, SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THE ONSET OF SYMPTOMS.

[bennevisplace]

Here is the case study I mentioned above

jto.org/article/S1556-0864(...

[RogerPinner]

'More or Less' should be compulsory listening for every politician, as well as every thinking citizen. After its broadcast there should be a short test when politicians should be asked which facts they disagree with and why. Long live Tim Harford and his team.

[bennevisplace in reply to RogerPinner]

Yes indeed, and it's a rich source of material for journalists interested in facts.

I enjoyed MOL's analysis of the 100k-a-day claim.