NYTimes | The data from South Korea, where tracking the coronavirus has been by far the best to date, indicate that as much as 99 percent
of active cases in the general population are “mild” and do not require
specific medical treatment. The small percentage of cases that do
require such services are highly concentrated among those age 60 and
older, and further so the older people are. Other things being equal,
those over age 70 appear at three times the mortality risk as those age
60 to 69, and those over age 80 at nearly twice the mortality risk of
those age 70 to 79.
These
conclusions are corroborated by the data from Wuhan, China, which show a
higher death rate, but an almost identical distribution. The higher
death rate in China may be real, but is perhaps a result of less
widespread testing. South Korea promptly, and uniquely, started testing
the apparently healthy population at large, finding the mild and
asymptomatic cases of Covid-19 other countries are overlooking. The
experience of the Diamond Princess cruise ship,
which houses a contained, older population, proves the point. The death
rate among that insular and uniformly exposed population is roughly 1
percent.
We have, to date, fewer than
200 deaths from the coronavirus in the United States — a small data set
from which to draw big conclusions. Still, it is entirely aligned with
the data from other countries. The deaths have been mainly clustered among the elderly, those with significant chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease, and those in both groups.
Why does this matter?
I
am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health
consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life — schools and
businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long lasting and
calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself.
The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never
will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will
be public health scourges of the first order.
Worse,
I fear our efforts will do little to contain the virus, because we have
a resource-constrained, fragmented, perennially underfunded public
health system. Distributing such limited resources so widely, so
shallowly and so haphazardly is a formula for failure. How certain are
you of the best ways to protect your most vulnerable loved ones? How
readily can you get tested?
We have
already failed to respond as decisively as China or South Korea, and
lack the means to respond like Singapore. We are following in Italy’s wake,
at risk of seeing our medical system overwhelmed twice: First when
people rush to get tested for the coronavirus, and again when the
especially vulnerable succumb to severe infection and require hospital
beds.
Yes, in more and more places we
are limiting gatherings uniformly, a tactic I call “horizontal
interdiction” — when containment policies are applied to the entire
population without consideration of their risk for severe infection.
But
as the work force is laid off en masse (our family has one adult child
home for that reason already), and colleges close (we have another two
young adults back home for this reason), young people of indeterminate
infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families
nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying
the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or
80-something grandparents. If there are any clear guidelines for
behavior within families — what I call “vertical interdiction” — I have
not seen them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment