« Keynes symposium | Main | Convexifying the choice set, an ongoing series »
From the comments, at Effect Measure
It surprises me that no one has mentioned this, so i'll end years of quietly lurking and say it myself: a possible explanation for the difference in clinical picture here vs Mexico lies in the sample size here. 8 of 8 confirmed "swine flu" cases here have not involved serious lower respiratory infection or death. But about 60 of about 1,000 generally unconfirmed cases of "swine flu" in Mexico have. If those all confirm, that's about a 6% CFR. From what i've read, we don't have data yet on the CFR of confirmed cases in Mexico, and we don't have a satistically significant sample here for measuring phenomena in the single percentage digits.
This tells me that there is no confirmed or statistically significant difference in the clinical picture between US & Mexico.
Of course Mexico is where most of the data points lie. That's Suzanne Bunton. Read the other comments too. If the Obama administration believes in competent government, it would be nice if they would meet the public health standards currently practiced by the government in Mexico. Even a completed fence would not stop a virus and there is otherwise no reason to wait. Should we in the meantime count on a more favorable mutation to protect us?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 25, 2009 at 02:27 PM in Medicine | Permalink
Comments
finally a purpose for twitter
Posted by: Phillip Huggan at Apr 25, 2009 6:29:46 PM
Tyler, be a little more specific. What would you have the federal government do now?
Posted by: jim at Apr 25, 2009 8:32:32 PM
"Even a completed fence would not stop a virus"
No, but it would stop illegal aliens who transport the virus. Note: I realize that legal travelers to/from the US can transport the virus as well, but the presence of thousands of illegals makes public health a joke, whereas legal travel is containable.
Posted by: concerned netizen at Apr 25, 2009 9:26:52 PM
According to Senator Gregg, we have the best health care in the world, and Obama is going to destroy it. Why do you think the free market isn't the solution for this possible pandemic?
Posted by: mulp at Apr 25, 2009 11:52:38 PM
Also, you can trace people for treatment through legal travel - not illegal. Most worrisome is the potential for exposure to children. Extended family members living in one home is common among illegals with higher rates of minor children in public school systems.
I recall the recent tomato problem and how inept the CDC was. I realize some agency members have written to 0bama for needed changes but filling open positions in this administration is the slowest on record, and he is too busy with the "Sorry About America, Spring Break Tour '09." And today capital hill was all a twitter over global warming and humans releasing CO2 from breathing. You see, if only people weren't on Earth the unicorns would come back. There has to be a way to tax that.
Posted by: FeFe at Apr 26, 2009 12:00:33 AM
You would expect someone with a blog entitled 'marginal revolution' to understand that partial measures -- as the fence would be -- can have big effects.
This epidemic, of course, isn't the only health problem that has been brought to America by mass immigration -- legal and illegal. From tuberculosis to bedbugs, letting in millions of people from the third world has impacted adversely on our nation's health. These largely uninsured workers are a burden on our health system's finances. None of these costs are ever accounted for by immigrantophiles. As usual, gains privatized, costs socialized.
Posted by: Mitchell Young at Apr 26, 2009 8:13:22 AM
closing the border will not "stop" the virus but it will SLOW the spread. The slower this thing spreads the more time the "free market" and the gov has to ramp up vaciness and antiviral drug production, face masks, improved hygine products etc which means the lower amounts of deaths. So the failure of the federal gov to seal the border will IMO cause more deaths than if they did act swiftly. It is a shame that the dems and the open border people would rather sacrifice Americian lives for their own ideaology. and the lives lost could be in the 100,000's. So will we place the blame where it belongs when/if those deaths occur?
Posted by: unseen at Apr 26, 2009 8:33:26 AM
if you are looking at a fence as a partial solution, you could put it anywhere. there is no reason to put it at the international border.
and anyway, closing the _legal_ border crossings would slow down the spread of the virus considerably, and that hasn't been done yet. i'd assume most sick people aren't going to be able to make difficult illegal crossings too.
Posted by: babar at Apr 26, 2009 8:46:30 AM
FeFe -- can you document that this administration is the slowest on record in filling positions?
Posted by: spencer at Apr 26, 2009 5:21:03 PM
You would expect someone with a blog entitled 'marginal revolution' to understand that partial measures -- as the fence would be -- can have big effects.
Cowen does not, never did and never is going to understand anything about immigration.
You see his grandmom (or whatever) and his wife are immigrants, they are good people (at least to Cowen) therefore Immigration is God's Gift to America and as such needs no your stinking racists facts.
Posted by: Mick at Apr 27, 2009 6:19:21 PM
it would be nice if they would meet the public health standards currently practiced by the government in Mexico
So , you blame the USA for the flu
Patients are refused treatment because they are contagious, are not registered or doctors are to busy. They refused to acknowledge the epidemics until the USA notified them. And the samples went to Atlanta
Posted by: k at Apr 28, 2009 11:30:13 AM
You would expect someone with a blog entitled 'marginal revolution' to understand that partial measures -- as the fence would be -- can have big effects.
Posted by: FUJITSU Laptop Battery at May 18, 2009 9:14:29 AM
