5 ms·

This is dangerous. Take every precaution you can not to get infected for as long as you can and that you don't infect anyone else. This is not the flu. The flu

This is dangerous. Take every precaution you can not to get infected for as long as you can and that you don't infect anyone else. This is not the flu. The flu makes you more susceptible to a material pneumonia and that's how it kills. SARS-CoV-2 is NOT the flu. COVID-19 is the disease, by the way. Here is the list of complications: -ARDS in 29% (Acute respiratory distress disease, this needs mechanical ventilation to survive) -acute cardiac injury in 12% (this potentially kills your heart tissue which leads to arrhythmia and then a heart attack) -secondary infection in 10% https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31986264-clinical-features-of-patients-infected-with-2019-novel-coronavirus-in-wuhan-china/?dopt=Abstract https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31986264-clinical-features-o... This is something you should be very mindful of. A Cavalier attitude can get you or people you care about killed. Here's the current list of symptoms to know if you're infected with SARS-CoV-2: fever in 98.6% fatigue in 69.6% dry cough in 59.4% anorexia in 39.9% myalgia in 34.8% dyspnea in 31.2% expectoration in 26.8% pharyngalgia in 17.4% diarrhea in 10.1% nausea in 10.1% dizziness in 9.4% headache 6.5% vomiting in 3.6% abdominal pain in 2.2% https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32031570-clinical-characteristics-of-138-hospitalized-patients-with-2019-novel-coronavirus-infected-pneumonia-in-wuhan-china/?dopt=Abstract https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32031570-clinical-characteri...

dr_dshiv 7y ago
Is it more appropriate to say that Covid-19 is dangerous if you are elderly or have pre-existing conditions? https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...
- milemi 7y ago
  Median age of admitted patients in the article above was 49. That’s not elderly. Also, only half of them had pre-existing conditions.
bart_spoon 7y ago
Your numbers aren’t matching other published statistics. For one, 81% of cases are considered mild. I don’t know how that is supposed to square with your statistic that 30% of patients need mechanical ventilation to survive. I agree that the disease is something to take seriously, but pushing incorrect information to fear monger is just wrong.
- Medicalidiot 7y ago
  These are the most common complications that leads to death. The clinical presentation is very different here. And yes, my source backs everything I said. Also, the Lancet is one of the most respected medical journals in the world. I'm giving your primary literature that I took from the current medical guidelines from what's published. I'm a medical student and, although not a board certified physician, I'm going to be apart of the care team that is going to be diagnosing this.
  - haunter 7y ago
    What's with this dismissive attitude?
    - Medicalidiot 7y ago
      I think if I had said this in person it would have sounded a lot less dismissive, but the way I typed it up came off as mean which was not my intention.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    The article is fine, but you're not reading it correctly. > Here is the list of complications: -ARDS in 29% (Acute respiratory distress disease, this needs mechanical ventilation to survive) -acute cardiac injury in 12% (this potentially kills your heart tissue which leads to arrhythmia and then a heart attack) -secondary infection in 10% Those percentages say how many out of 41 admitted hospital patients have those serious complications. But of course they have serious complications, that's why they were admitted to the hospital. Those percentages say nothing about the health risks to the average person who is infected.
    - Medicalidiot 7y ago
      Let me try to rephrase what you're saying just to understand where you're coming from. "these are cool numbers, but what's the chance that the average person is going to actually have any of these complications?". I don't have any cogent numbers on that, but the current deaths/(deaths+resolved) percentage is 8%.
Hendrikto 7y ago
> This is dangerous. How? He is not advocating to take things likely. He is not promoting dangerous practices nor a cavalier attitude. This is just some person sharing his first hand experience.
- Medicalidiot 7y ago
  "Hey it's not as bad as people making it out" will make people complacent. People need to self quarantine if we want this to be well contained. We need people to understand that if they don't take this seriously people will die, people they care about.
nostromo 7y ago
Panicking is also dangerous and has real costs. How about we agree to be diligent but also not overreact.
- Medicalidiot 7y ago
  Right now the Deaths/(Deaths+resolved) is 8%, which is on par with SARS in 2002-2004. This affects most demographics, but mostly the elderly. I'm not here to advocate for panic, but we need to take this very seriously now while the outbreak is still young. The more we can slow this the less dangerous the virus will become.
kspacewalk2 7y ago
Just to be clear, the percentage of those infected with the virus who will have ARDS is far, far lower than 29%. This is a percentage of those who were admitted in this one case study, in one hospital in Wuhan before January 2.
sciinfo 7y ago
If most people don't care to prevent infection, the hospitals and medical resources will soon be overwhelmed, the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no exact figure at the moment) to 10-20% like earlier in Wuhan. When viral load in the environment becomes sufficiently high, some young people will be taken away by it too, as in the case of several Wuhan doctors who sacrificed themselves under that circumstance. Among the ~16-19% who are hospitalized and recover, you may suffer through weeks of pneumonia and your lungs could be damaged long-term. Even if you're lucky to be among the 80% who survive without hospitalization, you could still be the vector who directly or indirectly infect someone you care about.
- Medicalidiot 7y ago
  ^This is exactly why we should take this seriously. Even if this "isn't a big deal" that attitude will get people you love and care about sick potentially leading to their death. I'm advocating that people be mindful and try to take this very seriously.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  Very true, the low end stats are for regions with few infections. If say, 1 million ppl get in NYC, expect a lot higher rates, as the health system cannot do much with that many people.
- kspacewalk2 7y ago
  >the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no exact figure at the moment) to 10-20% like earlier in Wuhan Those percentages come from different samples altogether and cannot be compared. 10-20% is heavily biased toward people who were admitted before there were even reliable tests for the virus or a recognition that it's novel and serious. Now you're comparing that to 0.5-4% which includes a bunch (though by no means close to all) of mild cases who got picked up by the tests but may not have required a hospital visit at all. What's the point of mentioning two numbers that aren't just unreliable and biased, but unreliable and biased in different ways?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
looper8 7y ago
I, personally, appreciated the words of warning a lot. I'm a reasonable enough person to not panic and will stay pragmatic about it (I'm not going to go into quarantine now, obviously) but it's very nice to see and hear people in the know are taking it seriously to prevent the spread of a horrible disease and many unnecessary deaths. Thank you for the warning signs, I will keep an open eye. :)

dr_dshiv 7y ago

Is it more appropriate to say that Covid-19 is dangerous if you are elderly or have pre-existing conditions? https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...

milemi 7y ago
Median age of admitted patients in the article above was 49. That’s not elderly. Also, only half of them had pre-existing conditions.

bart_spoon 7y ago

Your numbers aren’t matching other published statistics. For one, 81% of cases are considered mild. I don’t know how that is supposed to square with your statistic that 30% of patients need mechanical ventilation to survive. I agree that the disease is something to take seriously, but pushing incorrect information to fear monger is just wrong.

Medicalidiot 7y ago
These are the most common complications that leads to death. The clinical presentation is very different here. And yes, my source backs everything I said. Also, the Lancet is one of the most respected medical journals in the world. I'm giving your primary literature that I took from the current medical guidelines from what's published. I'm a medical student and, although not a board certified physician, I'm going to be apart of the care team that is going to be diagnosing this.
- haunter 7y ago
  What's with this dismissive attitude?
  - Medicalidiot 7y ago
    I think if I had said this in person it would have sounded a lot less dismissive, but the way I typed it up came off as mean which was not my intention.
- leereeves 7y ago
  The article is fine, but you're not reading it correctly. > Here is the list of complications: -ARDS in 29% (Acute respiratory distress disease, this needs mechanical ventilation to survive) -acute cardiac injury in 12% (this potentially kills your heart tissue which leads to arrhythmia and then a heart attack) -secondary infection in 10% Those percentages say how many out of 41 admitted hospital patients have those serious complications. But of course they have serious complications, that's why they were admitted to the hospital. Those percentages say nothing about the health risks to the average person who is infected.
  - Medicalidiot 7y ago
    Let me try to rephrase what you're saying just to understand where you're coming from. "these are cool numbers, but what's the chance that the average person is going to actually have any of these complications?". I don't have any cogent numbers on that, but the current deaths/(deaths+resolved) percentage is 8%.

Hendrikto 7y ago

> This is dangerous. How? He is not advocating to take things likely. He is not promoting dangerous practices nor a cavalier attitude. This is just some person sharing his first hand experience.

Medicalidiot 7y ago
"Hey it's not as bad as people making it out" will make people complacent. People need to self quarantine if we want this to be well contained. We need people to understand that if they don't take this seriously people will die, people they care about.

nostromo 7y ago

Panicking is also dangerous and has real costs. How about we agree to be diligent but also not overreact.

Medicalidiot 7y ago
Right now the Deaths/(Deaths+resolved) is 8%, which is on par with SARS in 2002-2004. This affects most demographics, but mostly the elderly. I'm not here to advocate for panic, but we need to take this very seriously now while the outbreak is still young. The more we can slow this the less dangerous the virus will become.

kspacewalk2 7y ago

Just to be clear, the percentage of those infected with the virus who will have ARDS is far, far lower than 29%. This is a percentage of those who were admitted in this one case study, in one hospital in Wuhan before January 2.

sciinfo 7y ago

If most people don't care to prevent infection, the hospitals and medical resources will soon be overwhelmed, the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no exact figure at the moment) to 10-20% like earlier in Wuhan. When viral load in the environment becomes sufficiently high, some young people will be taken away by it too, as in the case of several Wuhan doctors who sacrificed themselves under that circumstance. Among the ~16-19% who are hospitalized and recover, you may suffer through weeks of pneumonia and your lungs could be damaged long-term. Even if you're lucky to be among the 80% who survive without hospitalization, you could still be the vector who directly or indirectly infect someone you care about.

Medicalidiot 7y ago
^This is exactly why we should take this seriously. Even if this "isn't a big deal" that attitude will get people you love and care about sick potentially leading to their death. I'm advocating that people be mindful and try to take this very seriously.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
Very true, the low end stats are for regions with few infections. If say, 1 million ppl get in NYC, expect a lot higher rates, as the health system cannot do much with that many people.
kspacewalk2 7y ago
>the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no exact figure at the moment) to 10-20% like earlier in Wuhan Those percentages come from different samples altogether and cannot be compared. 10-20% is heavily biased toward people who were admitted before there were even reliable tests for the virus or a recognition that it's novel and serious. Now you're comparing that to 0.5-4% which includes a bunch (though by no means close to all) of mild cases who got picked up by the tests but may not have required a hospital visit at all. What's the point of mentioning two numbers that aren't just unreliable and biased, but unreliable and biased in different ways?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

looper8 7y ago

I, personally, appreciated the words of warning a lot. I'm a reasonable enough person to not panic and will stay pragmatic about it (I'm not going to go into quarantine now, obviously) but it's very nice to see and hear people in the know are taking it seriously to prevent the spread of a horrible disease and many unnecessary deaths. Thank you for the warning signs, I will keep an open eye. :)