8 ms·

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

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%.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > what's the chance that the average person is going to actually have any of these complications? Yes, that's the question we'd all like to have the answer to. But we don't know how many mild or asymptomatic cases have resolved, so the deaths/(deaths+resolved) calculation is a known divided by an unknown.
    - Medicalidiot 7y ago
      I didn't even think of how many people are asymptomatic carriers when I said that number. More data, like all science, is the answer here. Honestly, someone I highly respect who is high up on the medicine food chain is very concerned that a lot of people are going to die and that's been making me very concerned.
bart_spoon 7y ago
If you are going to flex your (yet unearned) credentials, I will flex mine. I’m a statistician, and your source is a perfect example of an egregious statistical fallacy: sampling bias. Yes, it says 30% had ARDS, but it was based on the first 40 cases, all of whom were identified before January 2nd. It’s literally just a sample of the the cases that were so severe that they popped up on the radar before people were even aware that there was an epidemic of a novel virus occurring. Even now many of the mild cases may be being undercounted. Back at the beginning of January, all of the mild cases were being missed. Being a medical student gives you no authoritative expertise, especially when it is clear you need to hit the books a little harder. That you will be part of a care team diagnosing the disease doesn’t make me trust you more, it makes me trust the competence of our medical professionals less.
- Medicalidiot 7y ago
  Let me ask you a question: what is the intention of responding to me in a condescending way? What do you get out of it? My intention right now is for people not to down play how serious this will become and that this isn't just the flu. This is the only data we have right now and it's saying this is really bad. You can talk selection bias here, faulty statistics, etc. but right now the death rate is 8% (deaths/(deaths+resolved) not deaths/total infections) and the list of complications is the check list for an intense ICU (no pun intended) visit.
  - bart_spoon 7y ago
    I wasn’t condescending until you were. I initially questioned your claims, and you responded by asserting that you were correct and I was not because you are a medical student and I am not. It had nothing to do with the validity of what I was saying, it was an appeal to your own authority. If you do not wish to make an argument personal, then you should refrain from using your person as an argument. Secondly, it isn’t the only data we have. The data in the sources you linked are dated. There has been weeks worth of data and tens of thousands of cases since January 2nd, so to rely on papers focusing on 40 cases from 2 months ago is inexplicable. And even our current estimates of the death rate are still very likely over estimated for the same reason: sampling bias. It appears that it takes longer to recover than it does to die from this disease, and so deaths / (deaths+resolved) will be biased high. It also fails to consider that mild cases are less likely to be detected and therefore won’t be included in the calculation, further skewing the death rate higher. And lastly, the overwhelming number of cases so far have been from a single province in China, overwhelming their capacity. Outside of that province, the death rate is far less. That isn’t to say that other provinces/nations can’t also become overwhelmed, but there is something to be said for the fact that having several months of preparation and notice will improve readiness remarkably compared to Hubei province, which only was able to react to the outbreak after it had been occurring for several weeks. This is all to say that, yes the virus is concerning, and yes people should prepare themselves, but it is also incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to spread immaculate and misleading information based on long outdated studies and statistical malpractice, and then do further damage by stamping it with unearned medical expertise.

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%.
- leereeves 7y ago
  > what's the chance that the average person is going to actually have any of these complications? Yes, that's the question we'd all like to have the answer to. But we don't know how many mild or asymptomatic cases have resolved, so the deaths/(deaths+resolved) calculation is a known divided by an unknown.
  - Medicalidiot 7y ago
    I didn't even think of how many people are asymptomatic carriers when I said that number. More data, like all science, is the answer here. Honestly, someone I highly respect who is high up on the medicine food chain is very concerned that a lot of people are going to die and that's been making me very concerned.

bart_spoon 7y ago

If you are going to flex your (yet unearned) credentials, I will flex mine. I’m a statistician, and your source is a perfect example of an egregious statistical fallacy: sampling bias. Yes, it says 30% had ARDS, but it was based on the first 40 cases, all of whom were identified before January 2nd. It’s literally just a sample of the the cases that were so severe that they popped up on the radar before people were even aware that there was an epidemic of a novel virus occurring. Even now many of the mild cases may be being undercounted. Back at the beginning of January, all of the mild cases were being missed. Being a medical student gives you no authoritative expertise, especially when it is clear you need to hit the books a little harder. That you will be part of a care team diagnosing the disease doesn’t make me trust you more, it makes me trust the competence of our medical professionals less.

Medicalidiot 7y ago
Let me ask you a question: what is the intention of responding to me in a condescending way? What do you get out of it? My intention right now is for people not to down play how serious this will become and that this isn't just the flu. This is the only data we have right now and it's saying this is really bad. You can talk selection bias here, faulty statistics, etc. but right now the death rate is 8% (deaths/(deaths+resolved) not deaths/total infections) and the list of complications is the check list for an intense ICU (no pun intended) visit.
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  I wasn’t condescending until you were. I initially questioned your claims, and you responded by asserting that you were correct and I was not because you are a medical student and I am not. It had nothing to do with the validity of what I was saying, it was an appeal to your own authority. If you do not wish to make an argument personal, then you should refrain from using your person as an argument. Secondly, it isn’t the only data we have. The data in the sources you linked are dated. There has been weeks worth of data and tens of thousands of cases since January 2nd, so to rely on papers focusing on 40 cases from 2 months ago is inexplicable. And even our current estimates of the death rate are still very likely over estimated for the same reason: sampling bias. It appears that it takes longer to recover than it does to die from this disease, and so deaths / (deaths+resolved) will be biased high. It also fails to consider that mild cases are less likely to be detected and therefore won’t be included in the calculation, further skewing the death rate higher. And lastly, the overwhelming number of cases so far have been from a single province in China, overwhelming their capacity. Outside of that province, the death rate is far less. That isn’t to say that other provinces/nations can’t also become overwhelmed, but there is something to be said for the fact that having several months of preparation and notice will improve readiness remarkably compared to Hubei province, which only was able to react to the outbreak after it had been occurring for several weeks. This is all to say that, yes the virus is concerning, and yes people should prepare themselves, but it is also incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to spread immaculate and misleading information based on long outdated studies and statistical malpractice, and then do further damage by stamping it with unearned medical expertise.