5 ms·

We were looking into Covid-19 at the office and after digging through the scariness we realized mortality rate for healthy 30-somethings is around 0.1%. Then w

• ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
  Yeah, I stopped worrying a few weeks back after I saw the mortality rate. It's basically a highly virulent flu with the same risk factors. Not on the same level as sars and the like.
  • James_Henry 7y ago
    It is a highly virulent flu with the same risk factors and no vaccine for those that are at high risk. It may not be something to worry about, but I'd think we should do something to prepare.
    • ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
      Absolutely, but the news is causing a low level panic as they do report numbers, but don't emphasize what the numbers mean. I guess that's also the viewers fault as the math is grade school simple.
      • brutt 7y ago
        Someone need to prepare explanation of numbers for them, but nobody did.
      • trengorilla 7y ago
        The news seems to mainly be reporting the 2% death rate when in fact it's more like 9% currently, so the panic could get much worse still.
  • wonderwonder 7y ago
    Mortality rate is 3.2% for COVID-19, 0.05% for the flu. That is a massive difference. That means that for every 100,000 people that get the coronvirus COVID-19, 3,200 will die vs 50 for the flu. Sars was a coronavirus just like COVID-19. While Sars did indeed have a higher mortality rate than COVID-19, far more people have died from COVID-19 to date than during the entirety of the SARS run. Edited: as my math was wrong, I had 500 deaths for flu when as @vatueil pointed out, it should be 50
    • vatueil 7y ago
      > 3,200 will die vs 500 for the flu Assuming the fatality rates are as given (3.2% versus 0.05%), that would be 3200 vs 50.
  • Blahah 7y ago
    That's a pretty cavalier attitude even if we take your assumptions to be true. If it's a virulent flu, the last time we had a pandemic with comparable stats was 1918, when we had much less global travel but much worse medical infrastructure. The 1918 Spanish flu infected potentially 1/4 of the world (500 million people at the time) and killed around 2% (variable depending on sources) of the global population - ~40 million. It's on a different level than SARS/MARS, because this seems to incubate without symptoms in the young and healthy (for now) and then kill when it breaks out in populations of the old and sick. It's spreading faster and being reported differently than anything before. Some basic advice that everyone should apply during every global outbreak they don't really understand: - don't travel if you don't absolutely have to - don't go to hospital unless you absolutely have to - try to stop touching your face - wash your hands and face frequently It's a pandemic, definitely (source - me, I'm working on coronavirus). Don't panic but don't be complacent. Just look after yourself and your family and avoid exposure to potentially high risk.
    • soared 7y ago
      Absolutely incomparable to the Spanish flu. Back then we knew literally nothing about the flu, we sent sick soldiers on public trains to hospitals which very quickly spread the virus to other sick/injured people. We took the exact opposite actions of what we now know is correct. We did everything wrong. It’s not even remotely comparable. Scientists learned about the corona virus category in the late 1960s, 40 years after the Spanish flu. It’s also not spreading unlike anything before? You can look at the graphs of SARS/MERS/etc and see at times it’s spreading quicker, but not remotely in the realm of never before seen. Good advice I suppose, but traveling is still fine according to the WHO.
      • Blahah 7y ago
        My point about the Spanish flu was that this is a complex comparison. Statistically it's similar so far. But with very different social parameters (massively increased global travel, vastly better understanding of epidemiology). We are still doing so many things wrong, given what we know. I think it's comparable. The public numbers are not the same as the ones on GISAID.
  • billfruit 7y ago
    MERS has a considerably higher mortality rate.
  • trengorilla 7y ago
    Out of coronavirus cases that have actually fully resolved (so the patient has either recovered or died) 9% of the cases have ended in death. In 22% of ongoing cases the patient is in critical condition. How in the fuck is that a "highly virulent flu with the same risk factors"? LOL
• jraby3 7y ago
  Isn’t it easy for these young 30 somethings to spread it to their families? Don’t any of them have young children at home? Interact with elderly parents? Not sure this is the best line of thinking.
  • sgc 7y ago
    Fortunately mortality for children is also very low. I completely agree with your perspective that this does not free us from worry or the human standard to care for others even when we are not immediately affected. We are also unaware of any potential long term health affects to lungs, kidneys, etc. in survivors as is the case with SARS.
• dpau 7y ago
  yeah so let's not give a damn about infecting others???
• thedance 7y ago
  It can be a major pandemic and still almost everyone will survive it. If it kills 1% that would be huge, but 99% of you will still be here.
  • trengorilla 7y ago
    Well so far 9% of fully resolved cases have ended in death. It's nearly all old people so I'll take some comfort in that though :D
  • pmoriarty 7y ago
    Killing off 1% of the US population would mean over 3 million dead, and it would be close to 80 million if it infects the whole world. In addition it appears that something like 20% of those infected suffer severe, crippling lung damage. That's not to mention all the economic damage, which in turn will have more adverse health consequences. We really should not be taking this lightly, even if a lot less people get infected and the mortality rate isn't quite that high it could still be devastating.
    • thedance 7y ago
      I said it would be huge, didn’t I? The other poster said it might not kill most people, my point is even massive disasters don’t come anywhere near killing most people.
• curo 7y ago
  > screw it and stopped worrying Wouldn't that logic only apply to people whose family, friends, and neighbors were only in the 30-something, healthy cohort? The estimated mortality rates for COV19 is higher than Swine Flu but not quite SARS. So anyone who care about, cares for, or comes into contact with someone who is immunocompromised (including grandparents, etc) would do good to keep an eye on this.
• tlarkworthy 7y ago
  sure, but you probably know some old people, and the hospital will be over-whelmed. Even if you're not dead you might find yourself organising funerals (who are also overwhelmed). So even if you are not directly at risk of death, you will almost certainly affected by secondary affects from the infra demands or your extended family.
  • Swizec 7y ago
    See that’s what I’m saying. There’s higher mortality than usual but the numbers don’t support a “funeral services will be overwhelmed, dead lying in the streets” levels of panic. It’s gonna be fine, more people still die every day from fatness, car crashes, and guns than they do from Covid-19. And being a transplant I in fact don’t know any old people I’d come into contact with unless I explicitly went out of my way to see them.
    • 7loopscom 7y ago
      The problem is that the number of people who need intensive care is quite high (10-20%) if good health care can be provided to them the mortality stays low, however, if the hospitals are overrun a lot of people would not get it and could potentially die (yes even younger people). And trust me no health care can survive a 300% spike in people needing ICU. So it is not that harmless.
• jobigoud 7y ago
  What about the 15% or so requiring intensive care units? If not contained this has the potential of creating a massive denial of service attack on the entire health care system.
• rellui 7y ago
  I'm amazed that people seem to ignore that EVERYBODY has parents and grandparents. I fear not for myself but my parents or grandparents catching it.