There’s a standard way to understand the relative danger of any activity. A micromort is a unit of risk defined as one-in-a-million chance of death (Wikipedia). For example:
skydiving is 8 micromorts per jump
running a marathon: 26 micromorts
1 micromort: walking 17 miles, or driving 230 miles
Generally being alive averages out at 24 micromorts/day.
Assuming a 1% mortality risk, being infected with Covid-19 is 10,000 micromorts.
But what about the risk of catching Covid in the first place?
The microCOVID project: 1 microCOVID = a one-in-a-million chance of getting COVID.
From the white paper:
For example, if you live in a region where about 1 in 1,000 people currently has COVID, then you could calculate based on studies of other indoor interactions … that meeting a friend for coffee indoors has about a 1 in 17,000 chance of giving you COVID. Such small numbers are hard to think about, so we can use microCOVIDs instead. Your coffee date would be about 60 microCOVIDs. …
One benefit of using microCOVIDs is that you can straightforwardly add up microCOVIDs to estimate your risk over longer periods of time.
There’s a calculator for regular activities (try it!) from which I can see that
going out to buy groceries is 20 microCOVIDs
having a small party, indoors, with no masks is 3,000 microCOVIDs
a 30 minute commute on the train is 100-200 microCOVIDs
The calculator takes into account the virus prevalence where you live.
So I might decide that I have a risk-tolerance of 10,000 microCOVIDs per year (i.e. a 1% chance of contracting Covid per year). That is, I really don’t want to get Covid, but I’m also not prepared to never, ever leave the house.
That gives me a budget of a little under 200 microCOVIDs per week. And I can measure my activities against that.
(I’m not sure, from the calculator, how to account for household risk: do we have this budget between us, or each?)
I find these kind of calculators useful to educate my intuition.
For example, an outdoor restaurant is only 30 microCOVIDs vs 500 indoors. A significant difference! Especially against my weekly budget of 200. Commuting via public transport is out if I want to do anything else. Useful to know.
Maybe your phone could track your location and give you a live exposure number over the day, like a badge? It’s 2pm and you’re at 40 co-rads today. We recommend you leave before rush hour and take this 20 co-rad route home, also WASH YOUR HANDS.
And this microCOVID calculator is the foundation of this. If you could automatically plug in realtime regional prevalence figures, you’d be able to make a risk assessment like short journey on the bus vs slow journey walking.
The framing of the microCOVID project gives me pause: it’s about personal risk.
But there are three distinct reasons why I follow the government lockdown advice:
risk to my personal/household, which is the focus of the microCOVID project
risk to others I might meet. I don’t want to accidentally infect my mum, for example
society a.k.a. public health – we beat this pandemic through collective action, by bringing down Re, the effective reproduction number.
Re isn’t a measure of prevalence. It’s a measure of how easily the virus spreads. It spreads more easily when people are meeting lots of other people without masks; it spreads less easily when social contact is reduced.
If Re is below 1, prevalence decreases; above 1, and it goes up.
I think of society as a whole having an Re budget. The figure I heard, at the beginning of lockdown, was that we needed to reduce in-person social interactions by 75%. I assume that social interactions are the key factor in Re (or at least, were believed to be at the time). Other factors might be: % people wearing masks; proportion of unique vs repeat people encountered.
There are some people we need to spend against the Re budget: health workers, anyone involved in the grocery supply chain, and other key workers. I am happy to reduce my in-person interactions by, say, 90% if that means that key workers need to reduce by only 60%.
Is there a translation between microCOVIDs and Re? I don’t know. Maybe +100 microCOVIDs/week/person in a region with a population density of such-and-such contributes +0.1 to Re.
I’d love to have that connection between personal activity and social good.
This pandemic has given us a whole new vocabulary around virality that wasn’t commonplace before. I wonder how we’ll use it in the future?
How many micro-RTs does one of my tweets have, where 1 micro-RT is a one in a million chance of it going viral?
Can we measure the effective reproduction rate of a given social media influencer?
And so on.
I mentioned skydiving at the top of this post (8 micromorts). Of course, there are also externalities. And that reminds me of something else I read:
In the UK, skydiving is a common way to raise money for charity.
BUT…
The injury rate in charity-parachutists was 11% at an average cost of 3751 Pounds per casualty. Sixty-three percent of casualties who were charity-parachutists required hospital admission, representing a serious injury rate of 7%, at an average cost of 5781 Pounds per patient. The amount raised per person for charity was 30 Pounds. Each pound raised for charity cost the NHS 13.75 Pounds in return.
Conclusion: Parachuting for charity costs more money than it raises.
Here’s the paper:
Lee CT, Williams P, Hadden WA. Parachuting for charity: is it worth the money? A 5-year audit of parachute injuries in Tayside and the cost to the NHS. Injury. 1999;30(4):283-287.
‘Yes, we’ll see them together some Saturday afternoon then,’ she said. ‘I won’t have any hand in your not going to Cathedral on Sunday morning. I suppose we must be getting back. What time was it when you looked at your watch just now?’ "In China and some other countries it is not considered necessary to give the girls any education; but in Japan it is not so. The girls are educated here, though not so much as the boys; and of late years they have established schools where they receive what we call the higher branches of instruction. Every year new schools for girls are opened; and a great many of the Japanese who formerly would not be seen in public with their wives have adopted the Western idea, and bring their wives into society. The marriage laws have been arranged so as to allow the different classes to marry among[Pg 258] each other, and the government is doing all it can to improve the condition of the women. They were better off before than the women of any other Eastern country; and if things go on as they are now going, they will be still better in a few years. The world moves. "Frank and Fred." She whispered something to herself in horrified dismay; but then she looked at me with her eyes very blue and said "You'll see him about it, won't you? You must help unravel this tangle, Richard; and if you do I'll--I'll dance at your wedding; yours and--somebody's we know!" Her eyes began forewith. Lawrence laughed silently. He seemed to be intensely amused about something. He took a flat brown paper parcel from his pocket. making a notable addition to American literature. I did truly. "Surely," said the minister, "surely." There might have been men who would have remembered that Mrs. Lawton was a tough woman, even for a mining town, and who would in the names of their own wives have refused to let her cross the threshold of their homes. But he saw that she was ill, and he did not so much as hesitate. "I feel awful sorry for you sir," said the Lieutenant, much moved. "And if I had it in my power you should go. But I have got my orders, and I must obey them. I musn't allow anybody not actually be longing to the army to pass on across the river on the train." "Throw a piece o' that fat pine on the fire. Shorty," said the Deacon, "and let's see what I've got." "Further admonitions," continued the Lieutenant, "had the same result, and I was about to call a guard to put him under arrest, when I happened to notice a pair of field-glasses that the prisoner had picked up, and was evidently intending to appropriate to his own use, and not account for them. This was confirmed by his approaching me in a menacing manner, insolently demanding their return, and threatening me in a loud voice if I did not give them up, which I properly refused to do, and ordered a Sergeant who had come up to seize and buck-and-gag him. The Sergeant, against whom I shall appear later, did not obey my orders, but seemed to abet his companion's gross insubordination. The scene finally culminated, in the presence of a number of enlisted men, in the prisoner's wrenching the field-glasses away from me by main force, and would have struck me had not the Sergeant prevented this. It was such an act as in any other army in the world would have subjected the offender to instant execution. It was only possible in—" "Don't soft-soap me," the old woman snapped. "I'm too old for it and I'm too tough for it. I want to look at some facts, and I want you to look at them, too." She paused, and nobody said a word. "I want to start with a simple statement. We're in trouble." RE: Fruyling's World "MACDONALD'S GATE" "Read me some of it." "Well, I want something better than that." HoME大香蕉第一时间
ENTER NUMBET 0016lkchain.com.cn www.ftx71.net.cn lyliano.com.cn www.kaichebao.org.cn p37.com.cn onemol.com.cn samed.com.cn v0kwfy.net.cn tmhalp.org.cn www.uwit.com.cn
There’s a standard way to understand the relative danger of any activity. A micromort is (Wikipedia). For example:
Generally being alive averages out at 24 micromorts/day.
Assuming a 1% mortality risk, being infected with Covid-19 is 10,000 micromorts.
But what about the risk of catching Covid in the first place?
The microCOVID project:
From the white paper:
There’s a calculator for regular activities (try it!) from which I can see that
The calculator takes into account the virus prevalence where you live.
So I might decide that I have a risk-tolerance of 10,000 microCOVIDs per year (i.e. a 1% chance of contracting Covid per year). That is, I really don’t want to get Covid, but I’m also not prepared to never, ever leave the house.
That gives me a budget of a little under 200 microCOVIDs per week. And I can measure my activities against that.
(I’m not sure, from the calculator, how to account for household risk: do we have this budget between us, or each?)
I find these kind of calculators useful to educate my intuition.
For example, an outdoor restaurant is only 30 microCOVIDs vs 500 indoors. A significant difference! Especially against my weekly budget of 200. Commuting via public transport is out if I want to do anything else. Useful to know.
Back in May, I was speculating about realtime, hyperlocal pandemic forecasts:
And this microCOVID calculator is the foundation of this. If you could automatically plug in realtime regional prevalence figures, you’d be able to make a risk assessment like short journey on the bus vs slow journey walking.
The framing of the microCOVID project gives me pause: it’s about personal risk.
But there are three distinct reasons why I follow the government lockdown advice:
Re isn’t a measure of prevalence. It’s a measure of how easily the virus spreads. It spreads more easily when people are meeting lots of other people without masks; it spreads less easily when social contact is reduced.
If Re is below 1, prevalence decreases; above 1, and it goes up.
I think of society as a whole having an Re budget. The figure I heard, at the beginning of lockdown, was that we needed to reduce in-person social interactions by 75%. I assume that social interactions are the key factor in Re (or at least, were believed to be at the time). Other factors might be: % people wearing masks; proportion of unique vs repeat people encountered.
There are some people we need to spend against the Re budget: health workers, anyone involved in the grocery supply chain, and other key workers. I am happy to reduce my in-person interactions by, say, 90% if that means that key workers need to reduce by only 60%.
Is there a translation between microCOVIDs and Re? I don’t know. Maybe +100 microCOVIDs/week/person in a region with a population density of such-and-such contributes +0.1 to Re.
I’d love to have that connection between personal activity and social good.
This pandemic has given us a whole new vocabulary around virality that wasn’t commonplace before. I wonder how we’ll use it in the future?
How many micro-RTs does one of my tweets have, where 1 micro-RT is a one in a million chance of it going viral?
Can we measure the effective reproduction rate of a given social media influencer?
And so on.
I mentioned skydiving at the top of this post (8 micromorts). Of course, there are also externalities. And that reminds me of something else I read:
In the UK, skydiving is a common way to raise money for charity.
BUT…
Conclusion:
Here’s the paper:
Lee CT, Williams P, Hadden WA. Parachuting for charity: is it worth the money? A 5-year audit of parachute injuries in Tayside and the cost to the NHS. Injury. 1999;30(4):283-287.