The article as a whole read as very apocalyptic to me, and that matches the reactions I've seen elsewhere. Unlikely to spread to healthier pops significantly, immunocompetent people don't really get severe Candida. Very suspicious of the death projections.
-
-
Note that determining cause of death here is often hard -"what killed her, was it the cancer, or the chemo, or the Acinetobacter infection?" E.g., a lot of the deaths attributed to resistant bugs may be of folks already on death's door.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @halvorz @SkepticalAlpaca
Yes, but let's not act like such a thing is impossible to begin to model.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
At the level of the individual, it may never be possible to fully appreciate the significance of ultimate vs. proximate contributing causal events re: death or to really defend the counterfactual. We can do *a lot* more at the population level.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @webdevMason @SkepticalAlpaca
Yeah it would be interesting to see an estimate of excess mortality due to drug resistant infections -wonder if someone has tried.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @halvorz @SkepticalAlpaca
I mean... this *is* what they're trying to do, no?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @halvorz
I’m not an expert in this exact question, but there is precedent for highly cited academic studies to not be careful about taking these things into account with death rates, in this case a study of deaths due to medical errors:https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/26/5/423 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SkepticalAlpaca @halvorz
It is certainly true that medical studies sometimes have absolutely fatal methodological errors. But it's *insane* to use that to argue that a particular study which you have not read has similar flaws.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @SkepticalAlpaca
What I'm saying is that all cause of death data is kinda bullshit, and the infectious disease part is the most bullshit of all. Start with crappy data, get crappy predictions. But this is probably gonna end up with me having to go look at the damn study I suppose...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @halvorz @SkepticalAlpaca
Projecting *anything* to 2050 is rocky, and again, I think it's probably impossible to confidently attribute a *particular* death w/ many comorbid factors to any singular cause. But do you think all population-level morbidity modeling is useless? That's a much stronger claim.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying we're spilling a lot of digital ink here and all I'm seeing is one bad study that has *nothing to do with this one* cited. Help me out here.
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @halvorz
The wash u study cited in the article that has the highest estimate for mortality does not control for other illnesses. In my experience treating patients like these that is not appropriate. The cdc estimate is probably better but I can’t find the primary reference.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.