9 ms·
What Coronavirus Does to the Body
- BickNowstrom 7y agohttps://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-chinese-regime-deploys-1600-internet-trolls-to-suppress-information-on-coronavirus_3242454.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-chinese-regime-deplo... Chinese regime deploys 1600 internet trolls to suppress information on Coronavirus.
- alexandercrohde 7y agoThis seems kinda baity to me, for a virus that kills 1/500 people aged 30-40 who catch it.
- anonuser123456 7y agoNot everyone is 30-40?
- sp332 7y ago"Even if death doesn’t occur, some patients survive with permanent lung damage." It's not just about dying.
- merpnderp 7y ago1/500 needs a citation. Because the WHO and CDC as of a few days ago said 1/50. But even 1/500 is an incredibly high mortality rate for something as infectious as the flu, and to make light of it is bizarre. Even your number would make catching it about 1000x more dangerous than skydiving.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y agoWhat bothers me is the difficulty in interpreting such numbers because they’re not normalized to health. E.g. dropping sperm counts in men. Is that dropping in all men? Or is it a side effect of rising obesity in enough men to dent the average? Is the mortality 1/500 here because a good health 30 year old has a 1/500 chance of dying? Or because the 1/100 30 year olds with poor health have a 1/5 chance of dying?
- anonuser123456 7y agoSo 1/500 sounds like a correct ballpark. A few days ago there was some data released by China on some 40,000 cases. When you age adjust the mortality stats by: - Assuming uniform age distribution - Accounting for the age distribution of the population. You get something like .4% for the 30-40 age range. This was a crude estimate... but that's why I say ballpark. It also could go up/down as we get more data. I agree the risk here is considerably high. People just don't understand scale well. Assuming the R0 is high, it could eventually sweep through the majority of the population. IIRC, the 1918 flu pandemic is estimated to have infected 80% of the population. So in the US alone that's 6,000,000 deaths, or one Sept 11. like attack every day for 200 days.
- Retric 7y agoDeaths are a lagging indicator. 2119 deaths as of yesterday / 0.004 = 530,000 cases that are ~2+ weeks old. In other words 530,000 infections around February 5th. That seems extremely unlikely based on the data we have. For a reasonably accurate estimate you need to look at percentage of total infections detected, and the lag between detection and death. Using say 50% detection rate and 7 days between detection and death you get 2119 / (63,851 / 0.5) = 1.7% fatality rate. That’s about as optimistic as I think is reasonable. PS: A 50% detection rate may be high or low, but that’s the real unknown.
- anonuser123456 7y agoI don't disagree that the data has very large error bars. I'm simply saying that, using the current best guess we can do the following: - Stratify relative risk based on population distribution. - Guage the impact of the expected bad case of ~2% mortality. Will mortality rate come down? Very likely. But it may not... And if not, what is the outcome at scale?
- Karto 7y agoBeside the discussable mortality rate among healthy adults, and beside surving with permanent lung damage, many people who are 30-40 have kids who are 0-10. Things take a whole new dimension there.
- anonuser123456 7y agoThe mortality rate of kids 0-10 has been extremely low. As for permanent lung damage, it's hard to say. From what I've read about ARDS, as expected, if you're young, lung function and general physical function can improve back close to baseline over time (e.g. 5 years). So it's not like you're going to be confined to a rocking chair but you won't be winning any marathons either.
- BickNowstrom 7y agoPrognosis for permanent lung damage is you have five years to live. EDIT: sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_fibrosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_fibrosis which we saw in SARS coronavirus-induced pulmonary fibrosis. > There is no known cure. [...] Life expectancy is generally less than five years.
- anonuser123456 7y agoNow stratify by age and cause. In the case of SARS.
- BickNowstrom 7y agoARDS is not permanent lung damage. You may recover lung function after ARDS. You will not recover from permanent lung damage. It will even deteriorate and your prognosis is less than 5 years to live. Stratification is a red herring, but feel free to do so.
- nck4222 7y agoCoronavirus isn't like the flu in this regard, and is actually less severe the younger you are, including children. No one under 10 has died from it, and only one person under 20. The mortality rate for people under 50 is about .2% (compared to 2.3% for all cases). So far it's basically a logarithmic function of age. The lung damage piece is obviously frightening, and we obviously still have a lot to learn about it as we're not sure why children are able to fend it off so easily yet.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoThe report says 2.3% killed, 2 out of every 100 is 2%. 11.5 is 2.3% of 500, thus 23 out of every 1000 would die at that rate if accurate.
- efficax 7y ago1/500 * 6,000,000,000 is a lot of people
- BickNowstrom 7y agoThere is also possible testicular tissue damage: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v... From SARS we can guess at the long-term effects, including permanent fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, necrosis, breathing problems, chronic lung and kidney problems.
- merpnderp 7y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but a mortality rate of 2.3% is a lot more than 23x higher than the flu, which the CDC says has a mortality rate of 2 per 100,000.
- BickNowstrom 7y agoFrom https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021675v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021675v... it has a case fatality rate of 4.45% for men and 1.25% for women. CFR increases when people don't get treatment for severe complications.
- OatsAndHoney 7y agoAccording to the WHO the case fatality rate is 2.3%. However the CFR is not the real mortality rate of the disease and is a changing number. Here’s an excerpt from the latest Situation Report about the CFR and what it means. “The confirmed case fatality ratio, or CFR, is the total number of deaths divided by the total number of confirmed cases at one point in time. Within China, the confirmed CFR, as reported by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,9 is 2.3%. This is based on 1023 deaths amongst 44 415 laboratory-confirmed cases as of 11 February. This CFR does not include the number of more mild infections that may be missed from current surveillance, which has largely focused on patients with pneumonia requiring hospitalization; nor does it account for the fact that recently confirmed cases may yet develop severe disease, and some may die. As the outbreak continues, the confirmed CFR may change. Outside of China, CFR estimates among confirmed cases reported is lower than reported from within China. However, it is too early to draw conclusions as to whether there are real differences in the CFR inside and outside of China, as final outcome data (that is, who will recover and who will die) for the majority of cases reported from outside China are not yet known.” https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=3346b04f_2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
- firethief 7y agoThey are defining the term "confirmed case fatality ratio" as something different from the CFR that cannot be directly compared. The way they say it is misleading because people will parse it like: "{confirmed case fatality ratio}, or CFR", but they're actually saying "confirmed {case fatality ratio, or CFR}". You can tell because CFR doesn't have enough letters to have "confirmed" in it, and it usually has a different definition. That's also why they never call it "the CFR", they call their thing "this CFR" or "the confirmed CFR". Their confirmed CFR is not a good measure of anything because the conversion rate to CFR depends on average time between case confirmation and death. It effectively assumes that everyone diagnosed but alive will recover.
- slowmovintarget 7y agoAccording to the estimates in the article -- predicted infections: 60% of 7.8 billion, current known fatality rate: 2.3% -- this virus is on track to kill roughly 108 million people. That's more than the Spanish flu of 1918 (high estimates put that at ~50 million).
- war1025 7y agoThey are really expecting it to reach over half the population?
- ksdale 7y agoI believe there was a quote from the Twitter account of an epidemiologist in Hong Kong to the effect that if the disease was left unchecked it would reach that many people.
- monkeynotes 7y agoThe article says > COVID-19 could infect 60 percent of the globe if left unchecked Clearly the outbreak is not unchecked. Many measures have been put in place already. I am pretty sure the global community isn't going to just standby and allow the virus to communicate freely.
- 7y ago
- wildcardww 7y agoClearly the long term health implications of a severe case of the virus are worrying, however its not clear to me from this article what the implications (if any) are if you get a mild case? Are there any articles discussing this?
- BickNowstrom 7y agohttps://nypost.com/2020/02/19/whistleblower-doctors-say-coronavirus-reinfection-even-deadlier/ https://nypost.com/2020/02/19/whistleblower-doctors-say-coro... > “It’s highly possible to get infected a second time,” one of the doctors, who declined to be identified, told the outlet. > The physician said that medication used to treat the virus can have negative side effects on patients’ heart tissue, making them more susceptible to cardiac arrest. > “A few people recovered from the first time by their own immune system, but the meds they use are damaging their heart tissue, and when they get it the second time, the antibody doesn’t help but makes it worse, and they die a sudden death from heart failure,” the doctor said.
- jeromegv 7y agoLet's stick to facts, CDC, WHO, etc, not some anonymous doctor.
- BickNowstrom 7y agoIt was the WHO who claimed on 4 jan that person-to-person transmission was impossible. It was CDC and WHO who said asymptomatic transmission was unlikely ("not a driver of the outbreak", "unclear"). It was the WHO who said closing borders and stopping Chinese from entering the country had zero effect on spread. It was the WHO who still claims that packages from China can't cause infection, despite science showing it can survive on plastics for up to 9 days. China should have all the data on reinfection, and thus, if they share this data with the WHO like they are supposed to, there should be a factual source from the CDC or the WHO. Where is it? If we stick to the official facts every time a whistle blower opens their mouth, there would be no point in blowing the whistle. Only one who benefits from that are the authorities. Like the UK government: If China does not share more information, we are forced to assume the absolute worst.
- deorder 7y agoIt is good to see that the generally accepted media is finally picking this up. 2 weeks ago talking about potential upcoming supply line issues and speculating about the virus / disease (most of what turned out to be true) got me and others banned, censored, quarantined (because of "spreading misinformation") and even threatened over PMs on several of the other social networks.
- core-questions 7y agoThis is a case in which the sketchier internet sites have proven their typical worst and best: they've got all the correct info hot off the presses, mixed in with the worst wrong info. You, the viewer, decide!
- ehvatum 7y agoI recall a similar reaction, in early January, when I heard about the likely protracted latent transmissible phase. I'm looking forward to reading, ten years from now, about how this virus and the rise of Xi Jinping's dictatorship coincided and erased China's imminent global hegemony, and nobody at all was aware while it was happening... The Chinese regime has no clothes. This is the Great Leap Forward for a new cohort. Deng Xiaoping attempted to prevent the rise of another idiotic Mao, but he would have had to reconstitute the state from scratch with a strong democratic tradition. So it happened, anyway. Xi Jinping is a singularly insecure leader doomed to create a brutally inefficient cult of personality. The only purpose of the Chinese state is slowly becoming the protection of Xi's crippled ego, which can never be made whole, all because Mao didn't like Xi's father and treated him and his family badly. To Xi, the only success is shitting on others. It is a tragedy. What should have been a leading nation is regressing and diminishing so fast that consensus media will take at least a decade to begin to comprehend it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ep103 7y agoWhich networks?
- kazinator 7y ago> Unlike their common-cold-causing cousins, these emergent coronaviruses can spark a viral-induced fire throughout many of a person’s organs, and the new disease—dubbed "COVID-19" by the World Health Organization—is no exception when it is severe. > That helps explain why the COVID-19 epidemic has killed more than 1,800 people, surpassing the SARS death toll in a matter of weeks. While the death rate for COVID-19 appears to be a fifth of SARS, the novel coronavirus has spread faster. That is bungled logic. 1. COVID-19 is very severe. 2. Because COVID-19 is so severe, in just few weeks it has killed more people than another famous severe disease SARS. 3. But wait, the death rate of COVID-19 is only 1/5th that of SARS, so it is actually less severe. 4. Right, okay, so COVID-19 has killed more people than SARS because it spreads faster. Why were we comparing SARS and COVID-19 severity again?
- ebiester 7y agoCOVID-19 is like comparing AIDS to HIV. HIV causes AIDS without medication. Similarly, SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 is very spreadable, and in 18% of cases, turns into COVID-19. COVID-19 is life-threatening. Does that make sense?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- samatman 7y agoIt's not bungled logic at all. R0 and lethality are unrelated. COVID-19 has a higher R0 and a lower lethality than SARS. COVID-19 has a higher lethality than the common cold. Those are the data points I extracted from what you've quoted.
- kazinator 7y agoBungled logic can consist entirely of propositions that are individually all true statements about the world. "Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, all men are mortal." Here, we can verify the facts that Socrates is a man, that Socrates is mortal and that all men are mortal. So as far as "extracting data points" goes, everything is cool. We just ignore how the data points are related together, and pretend we don't see funny terms like "therefore", or "that explains why" and such. If we just look for data points to extract, we are not engaging the arguments, though, It's an understandable reaction to the world though, in which we are bombarded on all sides by material trying to persuade us to believe or do something. > R0 and lethality are unrelated. Calling the bluff. You didn't extract this data point from the quote: it's something you already know. Nothing like vocabulary you're using appears in the quote.
- zed88 7y agoLeak questions official stats. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=228004 https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2...
- rocky1138 7y agoDoes anyone else find it annoying that people are calling this the coronavirus rather than it's actual name? What happens when the next coronavirus comes up?
- MR4D 7y agoThis one is already at least the second coronavirus. The first was SARS. [0] [0] - https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/ https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/
- harrisi 7y agoCoronaviruses were discovered in the 60s and there are dozens of them in the wild. Chances are, you've had a Coronavirus that you just called a cold.
- war1025 7y agoFun fact, the common cold is also a coronavirus. Edit: As pointed out in the reply, only some colds are coronavirus. Wikipedia suggests ~15% [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold#Viruses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold#Viruses
- hobofan 7y agoMore correct fact: "Common cold" is a disease that can be caused by one of hundreds of virus strains and only a few of them are a coronavirus.
- AstralStorm 7y agoAbout 15% of cases thereof, though. The name is COVID-19.
- azepoi 7y agoThe common cold is a set of symtoms which can be caused by a coronavirus but more often than not by a rhinovirus.
- war1025 7y agoOne thing that I found interesting in the article was the fact that people seem to be suffering from Cytokine Storms, which people think is one of the reasons the 1918 Spanish Flu was so deadly for young adults who have the best immune systems. Basically the immune system overreacts and starts killing everything. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome#Hist...