“What is remarkable about coronavirus is that if we are infected our chances of dying seems to mirror our chance of dying anyway over the next year, certainly once we pass the age of 20.”
It is interesting, but also a bit misleading. One has double the chance of dying in the next year if infected once and chance of reinfection in the next year. We also don't know the long-term effects on health, so those infected may have higher risks than charts from a pre-covid time either in following years or permanently.
The same data could be formulated more alarmingly as: If you're over the age of seventy, catching COVID-19 carries double or triple the annual risk of death on top of your annual risk of death.
Of course you're only going to die once in a given year and then never again. We'll have to wait a while to see how much lower mortality will go because we pulled in those deaths early.
I'm uncertain that is a reasonable statistical comparison. Seems like they are trying to use that to say it isn't a big deal but doesn't that mean that it doubles your risk of dying in a given year? It also doesn't include risk of serious long term complications.
We're uncertain about the death rate by at least a factor of 2 anyway. This "about one year" comparison corresponds to an estimate around one percent. Whether you think it's a big deal or not, it seems like a useful way to picture the numbers.
And it's interesting that the age profile follows relatively well. This was not true (for instance) for the 1918 influenza, which had higher fatality among young adults.
It's essentially illegal or would be ineffective in the States. Can't gather the necessary detailed gps data (illegal) and enough people will not opt in that you can't catch all super spreaders, and individual actions (like crossing the street because you saw something) matrer
I really dislike the way the discussion around this has been framed. It seems to have centered around two polar extremes. On on end you have the idea that we should stay in "lockdown" until there is a cure or vaccine. On the other end you've got the "it's just the flu" crowd who doesn't want any public life restrictions while also nay saying zero cost things like masks that greatly reduce risk.
Neither of those positions seems reasonable. Where are the reasonable leaders that recognize that it isn't practical to to have a "lockdown" waiting for a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case while at the same time recognizing that promoting small inexpensive behavior changes that keep this in check and reduce risk while that plays out is the way to prevent the need for more draconian measures.
I also think the idea that taking any precaution even minor some how means you are "afraid". Total nonsense.
>. Where are the reasonable leaders that recognize that it isn't practical to to have a "lockdown" waiting for a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case while at the same time recognizing that promoting small inexpensive behavior changes that keep this in check and reduce risk while that plays out is the way to prevent the need for more draconian measures.
They're all over. Most US states are starting to open via "stage 1". Stage 1 includes multiple precautions.
Masks are nasty and I hate them. Most people using them have no idea how to use them and seem to think wearing a mask is sort of like wearing your +2 Item Of Immunity from The Game Of Covid19 and you don't need to do anything differently. They just magically help, no matter how much stupid stuff you do.
My son said he saw someone wiping down a shopping cart with a wipe. It fell on the floor and and they picked it back up and kept wiping down the cart with it.
This is not unlike how many people relate to their masks.
This comment fascinating because it sounds like something that would come from someone who is a weak snowflake but your linked profile indicates you are a fan of the president who goes out of his way to project strength in everything he does.
I'm neither weak nor strong, I'm just stating my opinion that I don't feel the need to wear a wear a mask to improve how I protect society by 1% more, I'm already at 99%(IMO), that 1% is more expensive then I'm willing to make.
> On on end you have the idea that we should stay in "lockdown" until there is a cure or vaccine.
Is anyone saying that? Although I've heard plenty of "it's just a flu!!!" comments, I don't think I've seen anyone claim that permanent lockdown is a viable strategy.
I don't believe any country is pursuing an indefinite "until further notice" lockdown policy, although "lockdown" means different things to different people. Most European countries seem to have accepted that long-term social distancing measures are required, whilst trying to open up as much as possible.
> a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case
The UK government is hoping for a vaccine in September. This may not be likely, but it seems to be possible.
Its understandable since this is BBC, but it also ignores the dramatic financial impact being hospitalized for COVID19 can have on the average family in the US. It could be 0.0001% fatality regardless of demographic, and people in the US should still be very cautious if the hospitalization rate stays the same.
How many can afford to miss 3 weeks of work while recovering, let alone the bills afterwards or long-term health impacts. Will survivors end up needing expensive prescriptions or frequent doctor visits to maintain a normal quality of life post COVID19?
If the US really wants to 'restart' the economy and have things kicking, government-guaranteed health coverage (at minimum for COVID-related issues) should be priority #1.
This is spot on. The fact that the U.S. does not have A single payer system and an estimated 600,000 annual medical bankruptcies is grounds for a total revamp. That and the fact that the U.S. spends twice as much per patient with no better outcomes than countries with socialized medicine.
Most people have to pay for ACA plans out of pocket, and those plans still have massive coinsurance. 20-30% typically, which when your total hospital bill is $50k-100k, still adds up to enough to wreck most US family finances.
I'm surprised to hear people hyperventilating in fear while speaking of returning to the gym, school, or work. The press has a lot of fools whipped up into a frenzy with this virus.
Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. And it kills so rarely!
Over a period of 4 weeks I have periodically and anecdotally polled all friends by asking the questions:
1. Have you or anyone you directly know caught Covid-19?
2. Have you, or anyone you know, heard indirectly (i.e., someone told you) of someone they knew who had Covid-19?
For me, the answer to 1 was "One person": an in-law who was in longterm care in a Hong Kong hospital and died of Covid-19.
For me, the answer to 2 was still "One person".
When I extended the questioning to all acquaintances the answer to 3 was "Six persons": the in-law and
what a clerk described as "five men I know who are workers from South America." I asked him how the five dealt with the ailment and he said "They worked through it; they're young and strong and they need the jobs!"
If you told me to find a Covid-19 patient I would be hard pressed to do so w/o visiting a local hospital or funeral home. Even then I doubt they would have one on hand.
>Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population.
There's entire nations on lock down to stop the spread. Without such an order, you'd have much more than "very few cases". You said it, COVID-19 is "very contagious".
>And it kills so rarely!
If it spreads, there's less medical equipment, space, and personnel to help fight. This will increase the death rate. You can look at NY and Italy as an example. Not to mention, people are not statistics. If you mom dies, it doesn't comfort you that the mortality rate is so low. You want to keep mom safe.
>When I extended the questioning to all acquaintances
What's n? Is it statistically relevant? Where do you live?
>If you told me to find a Covid-19 patient I would be hard pressed to do so w/o visiting a local hospital or funeral home. Even then I doubt they would have one on hand.
What is even the point of this statement? Illness can be a danger to society without _you_ knowing where to "find" a patient.
The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post:
"Good article! Answer: not very scared!"
To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else one can do that will make one safer than to relax and enjoy the ride as best one can. So, for example, I read, exercise, eat right and live a somewhat normal life.
The point of my last statement was emphasis: I was emphasizing how uncommon Covid-19 is and, in particular, how rare Covid-19 deaths are.
The topic or thought of death is what seems to trigger panic in most people about Covid-19. Mention of the reality of Covid-19 is like waving a magic amulet: all I need do is utter "A Covid-19 death..." in a meeting and half the participants appear to void their bowels and the other half begin to make attempts to exit the room. Everybody needs to calm down and focus.
I was emphasizing how uncommon Covid-19 is and, in particular, how rare Covid-19 deaths are.
At one choir practice, one person spread COVID-19 to 52 people, two of whom died. During dinner at a restaurant, one person infected four people sitting at the same table, and five people sitting at other tables.
You think because COVID-19 is rare right now that we should go back to work and the 2-hour meetings in conference rooms? Working back to back with someone in a cubicle? Just... going to a restaurant and eating?
COVID-19 in the US is rare because of the lockdowns. Deaths are rare because COVID-19 infections are rare because of the lockdowns.
I already stressed that Covid-19 was very infectious, so why you're bringing this up is beyond me. But...
"At one choir practice, one person spread COVID-19 to 52 people, two of whom died."
There were 61 people present. The sick singers' average age was 69 [shades of "Nearer My God to Thee!"]. Of those, two died of Covid-19. 2 of 61 is pretty good odds, if you ask me, BUT...
how can we be certain that both deaths were due to presence at choir practice? Maybe they caught Covid from their grandchildren, a neighbor, or the postman, .... Similarly for the restaurant case, the affected could have caught the virus from someone other than the assumed.
Did the two deceased choir members have comorbidities (e.g., heart disease, diabetes, lung disease or asthma, AIDS, cancer treatment, an immune-suppressed system, etc.)?
We should avoid the 2-hour meetings b/c they are unproductive and boring.
Back to back in cubicles puts the actual effective recommended 1 metre social spacing into play. The 2-metre value was a judgment, a non-scientific value, tossed out by a British official:
"Robert Dingwall, from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), said the [2-metre] rule was 'conjured up out of nowhere'. The sociology professor at Nottingham Trent University said scientific evidence supports a one-metre gap, but the two-metre advice was a 'rule of thumb'.
Laura Ingraham may indeed have been correct when she claimed during her May 4 Fox News broadcast:
"Although, intuitively, I think it probably seemed like social distancing would be necessary, there was no real scientific basis for believing that since it had never been studied,"
Covid-19 is rare and will remain rare. The lock-downs reduce spread but destroy the economy, which also kills people.
It remains to be seen whether the "cure" of lock-downs is any better than the disease of Covid-19. It is almost certainly not less expensive.
Entire nations are on forced quarantine. That is slowing the spread (and deaths) of COVID-19 significantly. Without the quarantine, hospitals will be filled, leaving many who would otherwise live (with treatment) to die.
There are hundreds of thousands of at-risk individuals where COVID-19 is a deadly threat. No amount of "chilling out" or "exercise" will make that not true. To this, quarantine _is_ the precaution you speak about.
US states that have started to re-open are seeing surges in infection rates. Browse Google News to learn more.
Please do the bare minimum to be educated before throwing about your childish ramblings that can lead to deaths.
With a few exceptions, hospitals in the USA were never filled and their ICUs were never filled. We built extra facilities that are now being dismantled:
"Houston Looking at Dismantling $17M Temp Hospital That Didn't See a Single Patient":
Meanwhile patients who should have gone to the hospital for conditions other than Covid-19 are sitting at home dying instead. The hospitals are mostly empty and are losing money b/c of Covid-19 panic.
Quarantine is primarily for the susceptible or the sick. To extend quarantine to everyone has proven too costly IMO.
Re-opening states are seing increases, NOT surges.
"Please do bare minimum to be educated before throwing about your childish ramblings that can lead to death."
Please complete education in English language before posting to most honorable ycombinator website using childish Eastern-language-style grammar that can lead to boredom by most respected readers!8-))
if the lockdowns were needed to stop the spread, then we would have seen the states that opened up 2-3 weeks ago having a dramatic increase in hospitalizations right now.
but that has not happened
also when the lockdowns started we were not sure about the details of the disease, now we have a relatively better understanding
Same here and I was completely shocked when one of the YouTube channels that I watch the owner got it. I was like holy crap I actually know of somebody who got it and had to go to the hospital.
At this point it's clear that the most dangerous aspect of this disease is the risk of overwhelmed healthcare systems, which makes every one of us part of the "vulnerable population" regardless of our current physical conditions.
When (or if) our healthcare systems adjust to this threat enough to be reasonably robust in the face of outbreaks, and to no longer be centers of infection, then lockdowns and strict distancing measures can no longer be justified simply to save lives. Nobody genuinely disagrees with this, and the reason you know this is that nobody is advocating for lockdowns and strict distancing to save lives from other widespread infectious diseases. In other words, lockdowns and strict distancing would undoubtedly save millions of lives every year from the multitude of infectious diseases we already live with, but nobody serious has ever suggested we sacrifice our economy to fight them in this way.
It is indeed difficult to justify locking down indefinitely to save lives if you compare this to how we treat other infectious diseases, which is why the idea that it's monstrous to sacrifice even a single life in the name of saving the economy tends to go hand in hand with the belief that this must not be compared to any other infectious disease or cause of death.
35 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 78.5 ms ] thread“What is remarkable about coronavirus is that if we are infected our chances of dying seems to mirror our chance of dying anyway over the next year, certainly once we pass the age of 20.”
Of course you're only going to die once in a given year and then never again. We'll have to wait a while to see how much lower mortality will go because we pulled in those deaths early.
And it's interesting that the age profile follows relatively well. This was not true (for instance) for the 1918 influenza, which had higher fatality among young adults.
Certain groups seem to have unexpectedly high death rates: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52752022
So the situation seems very much to depend on the risk of infection you face in day to day life. If that can be controlled, you're OK.
If only we had a working tracing program.
(Not just about apps: plenty of countries have done a pencil and paper job, which is significantly better than nothing)
Neither of those positions seems reasonable. Where are the reasonable leaders that recognize that it isn't practical to to have a "lockdown" waiting for a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case while at the same time recognizing that promoting small inexpensive behavior changes that keep this in check and reduce risk while that plays out is the way to prevent the need for more draconian measures.
I also think the idea that taking any precaution even minor some how means you are "afraid". Total nonsense.
They're all over. Most US states are starting to open via "stage 1". Stage 1 includes multiple precautions.
My son said he saw someone wiping down a shopping cart with a wipe. It fell on the floor and and they picked it back up and kept wiping down the cart with it.
This is not unlike how many people relate to their masks.
Why do you think this a problem? If it is a disinfectant wipe it doesn't matter it just made the floor a little cleaner.
Is anyone saying that? Although I've heard plenty of "it's just a flu!!!" comments, I don't think I've seen anyone claim that permanent lockdown is a viable strategy.
I don't believe any country is pursuing an indefinite "until further notice" lockdown policy, although "lockdown" means different things to different people. Most European countries seem to have accepted that long-term social distancing measures are required, whilst trying to open up as much as possible.
> a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case
The UK government is hoping for a vaccine in September. This may not be likely, but it seems to be possible.
How many can afford to miss 3 weeks of work while recovering, let alone the bills afterwards or long-term health impacts. Will survivors end up needing expensive prescriptions or frequent doctor visits to maintain a normal quality of life post COVID19?
If the US really wants to 'restart' the economy and have things kicking, government-guaranteed health coverage (at minimum for COVID-related issues) should be priority #1.
I'm surprised to hear people hyperventilating in fear while speaking of returning to the gym, school, or work. The press has a lot of fools whipped up into a frenzy with this virus.
Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. And it kills so rarely!
Over a period of 4 weeks I have periodically and anecdotally polled all friends by asking the questions:
1. Have you or anyone you directly know caught Covid-19?
2. Have you, or anyone you know, heard indirectly (i.e., someone told you) of someone they knew who had Covid-19?
For me, the answer to 1 was "One person": an in-law who was in longterm care in a Hong Kong hospital and died of Covid-19.
For me, the answer to 2 was still "One person".
When I extended the questioning to all acquaintances the answer to 3 was "Six persons": the in-law and what a clerk described as "five men I know who are workers from South America." I asked him how the five dealt with the ailment and he said "They worked through it; they're young and strong and they need the jobs!"
If you told me to find a Covid-19 patient I would be hard pressed to do so w/o visiting a local hospital or funeral home. Even then I doubt they would have one on hand.
There's entire nations on lock down to stop the spread. Without such an order, you'd have much more than "very few cases". You said it, COVID-19 is "very contagious".
>And it kills so rarely!
If it spreads, there's less medical equipment, space, and personnel to help fight. This will increase the death rate. You can look at NY and Italy as an example. Not to mention, people are not statistics. If you mom dies, it doesn't comfort you that the mortality rate is so low. You want to keep mom safe.
>When I extended the questioning to all acquaintances
What's n? Is it statistically relevant? Where do you live?
>If you told me to find a Covid-19 patient I would be hard pressed to do so w/o visiting a local hospital or funeral home. Even then I doubt they would have one on hand.
What is even the point of this statement? Illness can be a danger to society without _you_ knowing where to "find" a patient.
"Good article! Answer: not very scared!"
To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else one can do that will make one safer than to relax and enjoy the ride as best one can. So, for example, I read, exercise, eat right and live a somewhat normal life.
The point of my last statement was emphasis: I was emphasizing how uncommon Covid-19 is and, in particular, how rare Covid-19 deaths are.
The topic or thought of death is what seems to trigger panic in most people about Covid-19. Mention of the reality of Covid-19 is like waving a magic amulet: all I need do is utter "A Covid-19 death..." in a meeting and half the participants appear to void their bowels and the other half begin to make attempts to exit the room. Everybody needs to calm down and focus.
At one choir practice, one person spread COVID-19 to 52 people, two of whom died. During dinner at a restaurant, one person infected four people sitting at the same table, and five people sitting at other tables.
You think because COVID-19 is rare right now that we should go back to work and the 2-hour meetings in conference rooms? Working back to back with someone in a cubicle? Just... going to a restaurant and eating?
COVID-19 in the US is rare because of the lockdowns. Deaths are rare because COVID-19 infections are rare because of the lockdowns.
(For some definition of rare.)
"At one choir practice, one person spread COVID-19 to 52 people, two of whom died."
There were 61 people present. The sick singers' average age was 69 [shades of "Nearer My God to Thee!"]. Of those, two died of Covid-19. 2 of 61 is pretty good odds, if you ask me, BUT...
how can we be certain that both deaths were due to presence at choir practice? Maybe they caught Covid from their grandchildren, a neighbor, or the postman, .... Similarly for the restaurant case, the affected could have caught the virus from someone other than the assumed.
Did the two deceased choir members have comorbidities (e.g., heart disease, diabetes, lung disease or asthma, AIDS, cancer treatment, an immune-suppressed system, etc.)?
We should avoid the 2-hour meetings b/c they are unproductive and boring.
Back to back in cubicles puts the actual effective recommended 1 metre social spacing into play. The 2-metre value was a judgment, a non-scientific value, tossed out by a British official:
https://sports.yahoo.com/coronavirus-social-distancing-lockd...
From that URL:
"Robert Dingwall, from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), said the [2-metre] rule was 'conjured up out of nowhere'. The sociology professor at Nottingham Trent University said scientific evidence supports a one-metre gap, but the two-metre advice was a 'rule of thumb'.
Laura Ingraham may indeed have been correct when she claimed during her May 4 Fox News broadcast:
"Although, intuitively, I think it probably seemed like social distancing would be necessary, there was no real scientific basis for believing that since it had never been studied,"
Covid-19 is rare and will remain rare. The lock-downs reduce spread but destroy the economy, which also kills people.
It remains to be seen whether the "cure" of lock-downs is any better than the disease of Covid-19. It is almost certainly not less expensive.
Entire nations are on forced quarantine. That is slowing the spread (and deaths) of COVID-19 significantly. Without the quarantine, hospitals will be filled, leaving many who would otherwise live (with treatment) to die.
There are hundreds of thousands of at-risk individuals where COVID-19 is a deadly threat. No amount of "chilling out" or "exercise" will make that not true. To this, quarantine _is_ the precaution you speak about.
US states that have started to re-open are seeing surges in infection rates. Browse Google News to learn more.
Please do the bare minimum to be educated before throwing about your childish ramblings that can lead to deaths.
"Houston Looking at Dismantling $17M Temp Hospital That Didn't See a Single Patient":
https://www.westernjournal.com/houston-looking-dismantling-1...
Meanwhile patients who should have gone to the hospital for conditions other than Covid-19 are sitting at home dying instead. The hospitals are mostly empty and are losing money b/c of Covid-19 panic.
Quarantine is primarily for the susceptible or the sick. To extend quarantine to everyone has proven too costly IMO.
Re-opening states are seing increases, NOT surges.
"Please do bare minimum to be educated before throwing about your childish ramblings that can lead to death."
Please complete education in English language before posting to most honorable ycombinator website using childish Eastern-language-style grammar that can lead to boredom by most respected readers!8-))
but that has not happened
also when the lockdowns started we were not sure about the details of the disease, now we have a relatively better understanding
When (or if) our healthcare systems adjust to this threat enough to be reasonably robust in the face of outbreaks, and to no longer be centers of infection, then lockdowns and strict distancing measures can no longer be justified simply to save lives. Nobody genuinely disagrees with this, and the reason you know this is that nobody is advocating for lockdowns and strict distancing to save lives from other widespread infectious diseases. In other words, lockdowns and strict distancing would undoubtedly save millions of lives every year from the multitude of infectious diseases we already live with, but nobody serious has ever suggested we sacrifice our economy to fight them in this way.