Interview with infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm

[jonalexand1]

pretty sobering take, but what he says makes a lot of sense IMO. It's such a difficult situation, with the contrasting needs of economic survival vs. holding firm from a medical safety and public health standpoint. We seem to be at the point where it's clear that the necessary testing simply isn't going to happen, for a number of reasons that he lays out in the article. It's also become the wild west with states prioritizing different things and forced into a competitive marketplace for critical supplies. Some states are valuing dates circled on a calendar over data (because again...lack of testing).

Not having a coherent national plan to tackle this thing certainly doesn't help the matter, but that's our reality. Mortality (and even getting serious symptoms) rate remains pretty low, but infectious rate is incredibly high, and this looks to be a virus that will come in waves for quite some time over the next 12 to 18 months. I'm sure some on here will say this guy is looking only at the worst case scenario, and maybe he is. Interesting to look at this from a number of perspectives though, even if they don't align with your personal views, or what you hope to be true.

link: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/opinions/bergen-osterholm-interview-two-opinion/index.html

 

[Conando]

Coming from cnn, not gonna read

 

[WinstonW101]

Even the best & brightest In the field are still just making educated guesses .

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

Coming from cnn, not gonna read

agreed. not saying there isn't some truth but it seems their main agenda is fear.

 

[casellers84]

No offense to OP, but people have their mind made up on this thing right or wrong. No one cares about these articles from either side.

 

[CUFam98]

Its actually a really good interview regardless of what "side" you believe. If the reporter had any clue about epidemiology terms it could have been better. Dr. Osterholm mentioned the infectiousness of COVID 19 as similar to 1918 flu. There is a huge difference between infectivity and virulence. Infectivity is the amount of people that will be infected by a disease. Virulence is the proportion that become severely ill or die. We are learning that the infectiousness is much higher than what we were lead to believe, but the data is showing that this is much lower virulence than originally expected. The reporter should have drilled in on that rather than just going with "we're gonna have deaths like 1918." But the general rule is a disease with a high infectivity will have a low virulence.

The only thing I would quibble with Dr. Osterholm is his rate of seeking medical care. If you take only the confirmed COVID positive cases, the rate of hospitalization is about 15-20%. However, when you account for the assumed actual incidence rate the percentage needed hospitalization is only about 3-5%. That cuts his numbers in about half. Thats the dynamic that has changed over the last 3 to 4 weeks with the ramp up in testing. The incidence rate is much higher than we predicted especially in asymptomatic cases, so the projected need for hospital space is much lower than assumed 6 weeks or so ago. The data from China and the WHO made folks believe that this was going to be a grease fire, hot, fast and extreme. As Europe and US data has come in, we've learned that this is going to be a long smolder. You notice how the experts have gone from talking about a 3-6 month window to an 18-24 month window.

 

[jonalexand1]

Coming from cnn, not gonna read

All good, you can probably find something unbiased over on Fox News.

 

[jonalexand1]

agreed. not saying there isn't some truth but it seems their main agenda is fear.

it’s an interview with one of the leading infectious disease experts in the world, not an opinion piece by a CNN anchor.

 

[Conando]

agreed. not saying there isn't some truth but it seems their main agenda is fear.

Yep has been this whole time.

 

[Conando]

All good, you can probably find something unbiased over on Fox News.

I’m not a huge fan of fox either but cnn is ridiculously one sided fake news. My opinion of course

 

[EAST1999]

Don’t cough on me bro.

 

[Earle36]

Coming from cnn, not gonna read

It’s either the China News Network or the Communist News Network. Used to be the Clinton News Network. it’s funny how loser leftist are so mind fcked about Fox News, including Obama. Yet they have every other news network in their back pocket. What a pathetic. insecure, sorry bunch of people.

 

[JAMCRACKER99]

All good, you can probably find something unbiased over on Fox News.

I’m not a huge fan of fox either but cnn is ridiculously one sided fake news. My opinion of course

No news network is as one sided propaganda news as FOX. Maybe MSNBC but probably not.

 

[Conando]

No news network is as one sided propaganda news as FOX. Maybe MSNBC but probably not.

CNN is farrrrrrrrr left sided. They couldn’t praise the president if he cured a major disease

 

[iceheart08]

I’m not a huge fan of fox either but cnn is ridiculously one sided fake news. My opinion of course

to be clear. so is fox. they both exist to make money, not provide us with fact-checked news. its both organizations. and msnbc. and breitbart. these things exist to make money and, oh guess what, fear and anger drive viewership.

 

[L.D. Keesh]

There's so much animosity between political "sides" right now. And both sides have points, but it drives me nuts. It will be very interesting to see what that all looks like in about 5 months.

 

[iceheart08]

CNN is farrrrrrrrr left sided. They couldn’t praise the president if he cured a major disease

where do you get your news? Personally, I absolutely cannot watch any of the 24 hour news networks, so I primarily get my news from New York Times online, the Denver Post (who I actually really dislike) and twitter, where there are lots of primary sources available.

 

[piperdog188]

where do you get your news? Personally, I absolutely cannot watch any of the 24 hour news networks, so I primarily get my news from New York Times online, the Denver Post (who I actually really dislike) and twitter, where there are lots of primary sources available.

For me it’s a combo of NYT, New Yorker, National Review, the Atlantic, Economist, and Foreign Policy. I feel like that’s a pretty wide spectrum.

 

[MBRO]

Can’t believe all the snowflakes ITT that watch Fake Fox News.

Everyone knows that the only real broadcast news comes from OAN.

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

I didn’t major in a natural science, but is it normal to only test the very sick and then make sweeping regulatory policies based on that data?

I find it weird how every study showing the virus is way more common and less deadly is always followed with criticism of how the data was collected. I find it weird those same people accepted the WHO’s 3% fatality numbers lol.

 

[bizlat]

I didn’t major in a natural science, but is it normal to only test the very sick and then make sweeping regulatory policies based on that data?

I find it weird how every study showing the virus is way more common and less deadly is always followed with criticism of how the data was collected. I find it weird those same people accepted the WHO’s 3% fatality numbers lol.

Yep, People will say listen to the experts, listen to science. Then when a study comes out that doesn't necessarily support their opinion, they'll be like nah, F all that or pretend like it doesn't exist.

But, we're all guilty of doing stuff like that.

 

[adgjunior]

It’s either the China News Network or the Communist News Network. Used to be the Clinton News Network. it’s funny how loser leftist are so mind fcked about Fox News, including Obama. Yet they have every other news network in their back pocket. What a pathetic. insecure, sorry bunch of people.

Couldn’t “insecure” also be defined as refusing to read an article because it comes from CNN?

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

Yep, People will say listen to the experts, listen to science. Then when a study comes out that doesn't necessarily support their opinion, they'll be like nah, F all that or pretend like it doesn't exist.

But, we're all guilty of doing stuff like that.

Agreed. I got into it with a guy in one of my soccer groups yesterday about that. He was discrediting USC and Stanford’s studies but was accepting the flawed data from WHO and CDC.

I do know the world starvation numbers are higher than anticipated deaths by corona. Hopefully those are over estimates as well.

 

[chassc]

where do you get your news? Personally, I absolutely cannot watch any of the 24 hour news networks, so I primarily get my news from New York Times online, the Denver Post (who I actually really dislike) and twitter, where there are lots of primary sources available.

NBC Nightly News
NYT
Local News
USA Today

 

[acwill07]

CNN is farrrrrrrrr left sided. They couldn’t praise the president if he cured a major disease

MSNBC is definitely the most left leaning of the major networks, and has been for a long time. CNN isn't far behind, though.

 

[GoodWord28]

Coming from cnn, not gonna read

After reading the age thread and seeing all the boomers here.....I'm not surprised.

 

[GoodWord28]

CNN is farrrrrrrrr left sided. They couldn’t praise the president if he cured a major disease

FOX is farrrrrrrrr right sided. They couldn’t praise the president if he cured a major disease.


See what i did there?

 

[tothmaster]

Coming from cnn, not gonna read

Refusing to read perspectives that you might not agree with is a pretty foolproof way of ensuring that you don't have one of your own.

 

[MKOTiger]

Its actually a really good interview regardless of what "side" you believe. If the reporter had any clue about epidemiology terms it could have been better. Dr. Osterholm mentioned the infectiousness of COVID 19 as similar to 1918 flu. There is a huge difference between infectivity and virulence. Infectivity is the amount of people that will be infected by a disease. Virulence is the proportion that become severely ill or die. We are learning that the infectiousness is much higher than what we were lead to believe, but the data is showing that this is much lower virulence than originally expected. The reporter should have drilled in on that rather than just going with "we're gonna have deaths like 1918." But the general rule is a disease with a high infectivity will have a low virulence.

The only thing I would quibble with Dr. Osterholm is his rate of seeking medical care. If you take only the confirmed COVID positive cases, the rate of hospitalization is about 15-20%. However, when you account for the assumed actual incidence rate the percentage needed hospitalization is only about 3-5%. That cuts his numbers in about half. Thats the dynamic that has changed over the last 3 to 4 weeks with the ramp up in testing. The incidence rate is much higher than we predicted especially in asymptomatic cases, so the projected need for hospital space is much lower than assumed 6 weeks or so ago. The data from China and the WHO made folks believe that this was going to be a grease fire, hot, fast and extreme. As Europe and US data has come in, we've learned that this is going to be a long smolder. You notice how the experts have gone from talking about a 3-6 month window to an 18-24 month window.

I agree. However, I do want to point out that if the infection rate is higher, the 50% he used goes way up also. Let’s say that’s 80 or 85%, then his bottom line #s are fairly consistent.

What bothers me is that many on this board don’t want to see it. He’s trying to be pragmatic and realistic. Most already believe he’s likely correct; they just don’t care and are happy to use misinformation to promote their own agenda.

 

[chassc]

I think the cable news channels went off the rails when they started attacking each other.
Mainly O’Reilly and Olberman. They seemed to be the ones that got the shit slinging started.

 

[Conando]

where do you get your news? Personally, I absolutely cannot watch any of the 24 hour news networks, so I primarily get my news from New York Times online, the Denver Post (who I actually really dislike) and twitter, where there are lots of primary sources available.

Local news and read from USA Today. Main news networks are terrible imo

 

[iceheart08]

I think the cable news channels went off the rails when they started attacking each other.
Mainly O’Reilly and Olberman. They seemed to be the ones that got the shit slinging started.

I think the cable news channels went off the rails when they were founded with profit as a primary motivator.

 

[chassc]

I think the cable news channels went off the rails when they were founded with profit as a primary motivator.

Maybe and probably.
There used to be civility, though. People might have argued over newspapers, but having an ideology and leaning never meant that you were expected to defend a network or a talking head.

 

[JAMCRACKER99]

CNN is farrrrrrrrr left sided. They couldn’t praise the president if he cured a major disease

I think CNN would be happy if Trump could just spell major disease.

 

[okclem]

Even the best & brightest In the field are still just making educated guesses .

Educated guesses from medical professionals are a helluva lot better than the president encouraging rednecks with assault rifles to keep protesting on the steps of government buildings. I swear to god, it no longer matters to me whether a Democrat or Republican is in the white house, as long as they can lead competently through a crisis that's enough for me. Trump has failed at every aspect of crisis management here.

 

[okclem]

I think CNN would be happy if Trump could just spell major disease.

I don't know why the actual media even bothers to cover him anymore. He treats them like stray dogs and never speaks a word of truth anyway. Just let Fox news cover this lunatic until he's out of office. The fewer people we have paying attention to him, the better off we'll be.

 

[iceheart08]

I don't know why the actual media even bothers to cover him anymore. He treats them like stray dogs and never speaks a word of truth anyway. Just let Fox news cover this lunatic until he's out of office. The fewer people we have paying attention to him, the better off we'll be.

Don't forget OAN.

 

[okclem]

Don't forget OAN.

I had cut the cord by the time I heard of those wackos, so fortunately I was spared.