6 ms·

Seeing as how the latest percentage-du-jour claims "80% of infected people will have no to mild symptoms"[0] I'm not surprised. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/202

Seeing as how the latest percentage-du-jour claims "80% of infected people will have no to mild symptoms"[0] I'm not surprised. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/asia/coronavirus-treament-recovery.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/asia/coronavirus-tr...

_bxg1 7y ago
Honestly it seems like that would be a huge relief? Last I heard the fatality rate is 1%. If that's actually 1% of the 20% who show any symptoms at all, it's now 0.2%.
- war1025 7y ago
  This is something I've been wondering about since people seem to be playing fast and loose with percentages. If you start multiplying small numbers together, they get real small real quick.
- zaroth 7y ago
  The most recent data I have seen (yesterday in the NEJM) indicates 1.4% fatality in lab diagnosed cases. This of course will only include more serious symptomatic patients, as mild or asymptomatic patients are told to stay home and are not getting tested. No one wants to stand up and call hysteria for what it is. It’s easier to go with the flow and cancel events out of an “abundance of caution.”
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    I think cancelling events is still a good idea. There's still a wide radius of unknown and none of these "events" are of any life-and-death importance to anybody. Hysteria is bad, but for other reasons.
  - altcognito 7y ago
    R0 value is roughly 4-7. Upwards of 5% of the cases require the ICU, 15% require support breathing. Medical personnel are coming down with it frequently, and Italy is trying to bring in newly graduated nurses and retired nurses to fill the gap. This is NOT hysteria. While it isn't a death sentence for most, it is imperative to slow this thing down.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      Please understand that every single one of those percentages is wrong as you have stated them. You forgot the most important qualifier, which is that the denominator is some fraction (potentially small fraction) of the total number infected. So when you say “upwards” of 5% of cases require the ICU, this is potentially very misleading. Stating that upwards of 5% of hospital cases require the ICU may be true, but now you must not try to extrapolate that value any further until you can tell me definitively what percentage of infections result in hospitalization? 1 in 5? 1 in 20? I won’t get into debating R0 values because they are nearly impossible not to misuse. For example, COVID-19 does not have just one R0 value. R0 changes radically based on actual conditions on the ground, often day to day. The R0 value of COVID in a cult church in South Korea may be actually 1,000 while the R0 globally over the entire course of this news cycle might be 1.2.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        > Please understand that every single one of those percentages is wrong as you have stated them. No, they are accurate as far as I know and I've been following this thing with some dedication since before it was discussed in the media because of relatively close ties to China. > You forgot the most important qualifier, which is that the denominator is some fraction (potentially small fraction) of the total number infected. You are misrepresenting the OP's words. He said 'of cases', that is the denominator right there. That we don't know all cases is something that everybody takes as a given. But just like we don't know all cases we also don't know all of the dead. The same happened with the swine flu, with SARS and with every other epidemic so far. Only afterwards, sometimes more than a year later do we have all the numbers. And sometimes those end up substantially higher than the original estimate both for the number of infected people as well as for the number of people that end up dead. > So when you say “upwards” of 5% of cases require the ICU, this is potentially very misleading. Upwards of 5% of the known cases. But that's assumed, if we don't know someone is infected then they by definition won't require ICU level care. > Stating that upwards of 5% of hospital cases require the ICU may be true, but now you must not try to extrapolate that value any further until you can tell me definitively what percentage of infections result in hospitalization? 1 in 5? 1 in 20? They don't need to tell you anything 'definitely' to be allowed to speak their mind. And as far as I'm informed that 5% rate is on the money. So, instead, the onus is on you to prove that less than 5% of the people infected that require care require ICU care. I don't think you are able to do that but I will happily take good news at this point if properly sourced. > I won’t get into debating R0 values because they are nearly impossible not to misuse. Agreed. > For example, COVID-19 does not have just one R0 value. R0 changes radically based on actual conditions on the ground, often day to day. > The R0 value of COVID in a cult church in South Korea may be actually 1,000 while the R0 globally over the entire course of this news cycle might be 1.2. True, but there are averages and even the WHO seems to place the number at > 3 at this point in time. That is already a pretty high number, even when taking all the care in the world to ensure it doesn't spread. Of course the criminals in Korea that hope to bring about the end times in some kind of warped self fulfilling religious prophesy are going to skew that number upwards. But in Iran and Italy there was no such cult, and their numbers are very much in line with the development in Korea. And since we're mentioning Iran now, there are lots of informal reports that the situation there is much worse then officially reported, with the number of high officials there infected this - unfortunately - isn't hard to believe at all.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Yes, like in Spain, where they have a 1 million strong 18 day long party going down right now. That gives just enough time for a third round of infections. [1] Shall we agree that if it ends up being bad there that you'll print out this comment and eat it? There is no downside from an 'abundance of caution' but there is a severe downside from not being cautious enough. Or do we really have to re-enact each and every mistake made by the Chinese early on in this drama? [1] https://www.visitvalencia.com/en/events-valencia/festivities/the-fallas https://www.visitvalencia.com/en/events-valencia/festivities...
    - zaroth 7y ago
      I will unhappily eat my words if it turns out to be worse than a bad flu year. Will the people discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates over the last week agree to eat theirs if it turns out to be less harmful than last year’s flu? Of course there are serious downsides to hysteria and doomsday prophecies. The market lost $3.4 trillion in value last week, for starters. But also real world economic impact which causes actual harm to everyday people. This has to be scientifically justified and not just political expedience.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        > Will the people discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates over the last week agree to eat theirs if it turns out to be less harmful than last year’s flu? I'm sure they will be very happy to do that, but I haven't seen anybody discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates, especially not on here. Link? My own comments - and I stand by those - consistently list 2-3% of those infected. That's still plenty bad and if it ends up to be less harmful than last years flu then we all have a reason for a celebration. > Of course there are serious downsides to hysteria and doomsday prophecies. The market lost $3.4 trillion in value last week, for starters. The market can will recover just as fast if it turns out to be a 'false alarm'. But right now there are no indications that it is and the only thing propping the markets up this Monday is the promise of money injected into the markets. Also, dead people typically do not recover as well as markets do. > But also real world economic impact which causes actual harm to everyday people. Yes it does. > This has to be scientifically justified and not just political expedience. I would start with my own comments if I were you. You fairly consistently mis-represent the numbers and have been called out on that before.
  - est31 7y ago
    The 1.4% apply to the general population. For people over 80, the fatality rate is 15%. There are roughly 13 million people over 80 in the US [1]. If everyone gets infected, a fatality rate of 15% means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone. With the 1.4% figure it's 4.6 million over the entire US population. As a comparison, the number of yearly deaths in the US caused by influenza is in the 5 digits. World war 2 killed 3% of the world population over a range of multiple years [2]. If the coronavirus kills only 1% of the current world population, its death toll in absolute numbers will be equal to WW2. I think at this point, the disease can't be contained, its spread only slowed. Everyone will be exposed to it sooner or later. Fortunately though there are treatments, and there are already candidates for vaccines. The question is only how quickly and how well those treatments can be deployed. The less people have the disease at the same time, the better. [1]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
    - zaroth 7y ago
      This is badly misinterpreting the data. You cannot extrapolate the fatality rate of lab-confirmed infections to the general population. This is especially true in scenarios where the infection is predominantly mild. This is also especially true in scenarios where diagnostic testing bandwidth was being stressed. Both are true in this case. I fully expect the general population fatality rate for COVID will be on the order of 0.1% or less of all infected. Keeping in mind the true denominator will never actually be known. At risk of belaboring the point... you state that the fatality rate for people over 80 is 15%. This is false. Maybe it is accurate to say that the fatality rate is 15% for people over 80 who go to the hospital. That is a massively important qualifier to the statement. The fatality rate for all infected people over 80 is not known. The closest you can get is looking at Diamond Princess, where everyone was exposed and as of right now 6 of 3700 died, and that’s in a population skewing elderly.
      - est31 7y ago
        > you state that the fatality rate for people over 80 is 15%. This is false. Check this study, it contains that number: http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9... Yes, most people studied were symptomatic, so asymptomatic people weren't checked. > The closest you can get is looking at Diamond Princess, where everyone was exposed and as of right now 6 of 3700 died, and that’s in a population skewing elderly. First, we can't be sure that everyone was exposed to the disease. Even if we assume that everyone was exposed, then I still interpret the numbers differently from you: first, patients on Diamond Princess were subject to medical attention so they likely saved many lives, and second, A total number of 705 of 3700 people became ill enough to be able to confirm the disease on them, the same category of people the 1.4% or the 15% were calculated on. So assume for a moment that 1 out of 5 people exposed become confirmably ill. Even if you divide the number of deaths by 5, it's still a large number and larger than influenza or other diseases.
- 29athrowaway 7y ago
  It's not 1% for everyone. Older folks have a much higher fatality rate.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    So? That doesn't change the point whatsoever. Multiply whichever percentage by 1/5.
    - thephyber 7y ago
      “The point” is an unconfirmed assertion that has been circulating for weeks. While there’s likely some truth to it, you can’t blindly assume that the 20% of the population that are asymptomatic are evenly distributed across the age spectrum.’t be so quick to write off your comment’s parent. Hypothetical: it’s possible that the 70+ Demographic is much more likely to have pre-existing conditions (diabetes, scarred lungs, heart disease) which makes COVIS19 symptoms more likely to appear.
      - _bxg1 7y ago
        I'm not saying the CDC needs to go take my rough guess as fact and run with it. I'm saying that what the parent comment pointed out is completely tangential to it.
    - koheripbal 7y ago
      No, that's wrong math. You cannot assume only the worst 20% have gone to get tested. In China, there are plenty of people dying AT HOME.
- flukus 7y ago
  > If that's actually 1% of the 20% who show any symptoms at all, it's now 0.2%. It's much more complicated than that and anyone stating decisive numbers is full of it. On one hand you've got the number of cases in the wild probably being higher than the confirmed cases, on the other hand there is a 1-3 week lag between people contracting the virus and death, so you can't really claim it's a low percentage until people are recovering. It will be weeks/months before the numbers start showing the true story. Currently South Korea is the biggest source of optimism, it's only killed 0.5% of cases there, but the also only have 30/4000 that are recovered.
  - altcognito 7y ago
    They are doing a heck of a job testing people, and their numbers are probably the best going.
- knzhou 7y ago
  That's not how math works. The 1% fatality rate is out of the people tested positive. The 20% serious symptoms rate is also out of the people tested positive. You don't get to multiply these together.
  - Tomminn 7y ago
    That's only "how math works" under the assumption that the people who tested positive is an unbiased sample of the population who have coronavirus. That is, you're implicitly assuming you're equally likely to be tested if you have symptoms or if you have no symptoms. The parent is suggesting the possibility that if you have symptoms you're far more likely to be tested than if you have none.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Exactly. People mildly "under the weather" in an area where infection numbers are known to be significant, would probably be scared to go to the hospital, too. I know I would not go unless shit got really bad.
    - knzhou 7y ago
      That's true, but "1%" is already adjusted for this effect -- in the early days when China was getting overwhelmed, the number was much higher. 1% is the number that we've stabilized on within countries doing proactive, mass testing.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    If 80% of people will have no symptoms, and testing is being as conservative as it is (people going untested unless they show clear symptoms), then that is how math works. It suggests that that 20% encompasses at least those being tested, if not others too.
    - flukus 7y ago
      > If 80% of people will have no symptoms I don't disagree, but it's not as skewed as you think. A lot of that 80% will be very ill and get tested, a 'mild' case is basically anyone not attached to an oxygen tank. Edit - Sigh, from the WHO: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses > The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, tiredness, and dry cough. Some patients may have aches and pains, nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat or diarrhea. These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don't feel unwell. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing special treatment. Around 1 out of every 6 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing. "80% of people will have no symptoms" is not true.

_bxg1 7y ago

Honestly it seems like that would be a huge relief? Last I heard the fatality rate is 1%. If that's actually 1% of the 20% who show any symptoms at all, it's now 0.2%.

war1025 7y ago
This is something I've been wondering about since people seem to be playing fast and loose with percentages. If you start multiplying small numbers together, they get real small real quick.
zaroth 7y ago
The most recent data I have seen (yesterday in the NEJM) indicates 1.4% fatality in lab diagnosed cases. This of course will only include more serious symptomatic patients, as mild or asymptomatic patients are told to stay home and are not getting tested. No one wants to stand up and call hysteria for what it is. It’s easier to go with the flow and cancel events out of an “abundance of caution.”
- _bxg1 7y ago
  I think cancelling events is still a good idea. There's still a wide radius of unknown and none of these "events" are of any life-and-death importance to anybody. Hysteria is bad, but for other reasons.
- altcognito 7y ago
  R0 value is roughly 4-7. Upwards of 5% of the cases require the ICU, 15% require support breathing. Medical personnel are coming down with it frequently, and Italy is trying to bring in newly graduated nurses and retired nurses to fill the gap. This is NOT hysteria. While it isn't a death sentence for most, it is imperative to slow this thing down.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Please understand that every single one of those percentages is wrong as you have stated them. You forgot the most important qualifier, which is that the denominator is some fraction (potentially small fraction) of the total number infected. So when you say “upwards” of 5% of cases require the ICU, this is potentially very misleading. Stating that upwards of 5% of hospital cases require the ICU may be true, but now you must not try to extrapolate that value any further until you can tell me definitively what percentage of infections result in hospitalization? 1 in 5? 1 in 20? I won’t get into debating R0 values because they are nearly impossible not to misuse. For example, COVID-19 does not have just one R0 value. R0 changes radically based on actual conditions on the ground, often day to day. The R0 value of COVID in a cult church in South Korea may be actually 1,000 while the R0 globally over the entire course of this news cycle might be 1.2.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > Please understand that every single one of those percentages is wrong as you have stated them. No, they are accurate as far as I know and I've been following this thing with some dedication since before it was discussed in the media because of relatively close ties to China. > You forgot the most important qualifier, which is that the denominator is some fraction (potentially small fraction) of the total number infected. You are misrepresenting the OP's words. He said 'of cases', that is the denominator right there. That we don't know all cases is something that everybody takes as a given. But just like we don't know all cases we also don't know all of the dead. The same happened with the swine flu, with SARS and with every other epidemic so far. Only afterwards, sometimes more than a year later do we have all the numbers. And sometimes those end up substantially higher than the original estimate both for the number of infected people as well as for the number of people that end up dead. > So when you say “upwards” of 5% of cases require the ICU, this is potentially very misleading. Upwards of 5% of the known cases. But that's assumed, if we don't know someone is infected then they by definition won't require ICU level care. > Stating that upwards of 5% of hospital cases require the ICU may be true, but now you must not try to extrapolate that value any further until you can tell me definitively what percentage of infections result in hospitalization? 1 in 5? 1 in 20? They don't need to tell you anything 'definitely' to be allowed to speak their mind. And as far as I'm informed that 5% rate is on the money. So, instead, the onus is on you to prove that less than 5% of the people infected that require care require ICU care. I don't think you are able to do that but I will happily take good news at this point if properly sourced. > I won’t get into debating R0 values because they are nearly impossible not to misuse. Agreed. > For example, COVID-19 does not have just one R0 value. R0 changes radically based on actual conditions on the ground, often day to day. > The R0 value of COVID in a cult church in South Korea may be actually 1,000 while the R0 globally over the entire course of this news cycle might be 1.2. True, but there are averages and even the WHO seems to place the number at > 3 at this point in time. That is already a pretty high number, even when taking all the care in the world to ensure it doesn't spread. Of course the criminals in Korea that hope to bring about the end times in some kind of warped self fulfilling religious prophesy are going to skew that number upwards. But in Iran and Italy there was no such cult, and their numbers are very much in line with the development in Korea. And since we're mentioning Iran now, there are lots of informal reports that the situation there is much worse then officially reported, with the number of high officials there infected this - unfortunately - isn't hard to believe at all.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Yes, like in Spain, where they have a 1 million strong 18 day long party going down right now. That gives just enough time for a third round of infections. [1] Shall we agree that if it ends up being bad there that you'll print out this comment and eat it? There is no downside from an 'abundance of caution' but there is a severe downside from not being cautious enough. Or do we really have to re-enact each and every mistake made by the Chinese early on in this drama? [1] https://www.visitvalencia.com/en/events-valencia/festivities/the-fallas https://www.visitvalencia.com/en/events-valencia/festivities...
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I will unhappily eat my words if it turns out to be worse than a bad flu year. Will the people discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates over the last week agree to eat theirs if it turns out to be less harmful than last year’s flu? Of course there are serious downsides to hysteria and doomsday prophecies. The market lost $3.4 trillion in value last week, for starters. But also real world economic impact which causes actual harm to everyday people. This has to be scientifically justified and not just political expedience.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > Will the people discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates over the last week agree to eat theirs if it turns out to be less harmful than last year’s flu? I'm sure they will be very happy to do that, but I haven't seen anybody discussing 5-7% general population fatality rates, especially not on here. Link? My own comments - and I stand by those - consistently list 2-3% of those infected. That's still plenty bad and if it ends up to be less harmful than last years flu then we all have a reason for a celebration. > Of course there are serious downsides to hysteria and doomsday prophecies. The market lost $3.4 trillion in value last week, for starters. The market can will recover just as fast if it turns out to be a 'false alarm'. But right now there are no indications that it is and the only thing propping the markets up this Monday is the promise of money injected into the markets. Also, dead people typically do not recover as well as markets do. > But also real world economic impact which causes actual harm to everyday people. Yes it does. > This has to be scientifically justified and not just political expedience. I would start with my own comments if I were you. You fairly consistently mis-represent the numbers and have been called out on that before.
- est31 7y ago
  The 1.4% apply to the general population. For people over 80, the fatality rate is 15%. There are roughly 13 million people over 80 in the US [1]. If everyone gets infected, a fatality rate of 15% means 2 million deaths in that single bracket alone. With the 1.4% figure it's 4.6 million over the entire US population. As a comparison, the number of yearly deaths in the US caused by influenza is in the 5 digits. World war 2 killed 3% of the world population over a range of multiple years [2]. If the coronavirus kills only 1% of the current world population, its death toll in absolute numbers will be equal to WW2. I think at this point, the disease can't be contained, its spread only slowed. Everyone will be exposed to it sooner or later. Fortunately though there are treatments, and there are already candidates for vaccines. The question is only how quickly and how well those treatments can be deployed. The less people have the disease at the same time, the better. [1]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
  - zaroth 7y ago
    This is badly misinterpreting the data. You cannot extrapolate the fatality rate of lab-confirmed infections to the general population. This is especially true in scenarios where the infection is predominantly mild. This is also especially true in scenarios where diagnostic testing bandwidth was being stressed. Both are true in this case. I fully expect the general population fatality rate for COVID will be on the order of 0.1% or less of all infected. Keeping in mind the true denominator will never actually be known. At risk of belaboring the point... you state that the fatality rate for people over 80 is 15%. This is false. Maybe it is accurate to say that the fatality rate is 15% for people over 80 who go to the hospital. That is a massively important qualifier to the statement. The fatality rate for all infected people over 80 is not known. The closest you can get is looking at Diamond Princess, where everyone was exposed and as of right now 6 of 3700 died, and that’s in a population skewing elderly.
    - est31 7y ago
      > you state that the fatality rate for people over 80 is 15%. This is false. Check this study, it contains that number: http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9... Yes, most people studied were symptomatic, so asymptomatic people weren't checked. > The closest you can get is looking at Diamond Princess, where everyone was exposed and as of right now 6 of 3700 died, and that’s in a population skewing elderly. First, we can't be sure that everyone was exposed to the disease. Even if we assume that everyone was exposed, then I still interpret the numbers differently from you: first, patients on Diamond Princess were subject to medical attention so they likely saved many lives, and second, A total number of 705 of 3700 people became ill enough to be able to confirm the disease on them, the same category of people the 1.4% or the 15% were calculated on. So assume for a moment that 1 out of 5 people exposed become confirmably ill. Even if you divide the number of deaths by 5, it's still a large number and larger than influenza or other diseases.
29athrowaway 7y ago
It's not 1% for everyone. Older folks have a much higher fatality rate.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  So? That doesn't change the point whatsoever. Multiply whichever percentage by 1/5.
  - thephyber 7y ago
    “The point” is an unconfirmed assertion that has been circulating for weeks. While there’s likely some truth to it, you can’t blindly assume that the 20% of the population that are asymptomatic are evenly distributed across the age spectrum.’t be so quick to write off your comment’s parent. Hypothetical: it’s possible that the 70+ Demographic is much more likely to have pre-existing conditions (diabetes, scarred lungs, heart disease) which makes COVIS19 symptoms more likely to appear.
    - _bxg1 7y ago
      I'm not saying the CDC needs to go take my rough guess as fact and run with it. I'm saying that what the parent comment pointed out is completely tangential to it.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    No, that's wrong math. You cannot assume only the worst 20% have gone to get tested. In China, there are plenty of people dying AT HOME.
flukus 7y ago
> If that's actually 1% of the 20% who show any symptoms at all, it's now 0.2%. It's much more complicated than that and anyone stating decisive numbers is full of it. On one hand you've got the number of cases in the wild probably being higher than the confirmed cases, on the other hand there is a 1-3 week lag between people contracting the virus and death, so you can't really claim it's a low percentage until people are recovering. It will be weeks/months before the numbers start showing the true story. Currently South Korea is the biggest source of optimism, it's only killed 0.5% of cases there, but the also only have 30/4000 that are recovered.
- altcognito 7y ago
  They are doing a heck of a job testing people, and their numbers are probably the best going.
knzhou 7y ago
That's not how math works. The 1% fatality rate is out of the people tested positive. The 20% serious symptoms rate is also out of the people tested positive. You don't get to multiply these together.
- Tomminn 7y ago
  That's only "how math works" under the assumption that the people who tested positive is an unbiased sample of the population who have coronavirus. That is, you're implicitly assuming you're equally likely to be tested if you have symptoms or if you have no symptoms. The parent is suggesting the possibility that if you have symptoms you're far more likely to be tested than if you have none.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Exactly. People mildly "under the weather" in an area where infection numbers are known to be significant, would probably be scared to go to the hospital, too. I know I would not go unless shit got really bad.
  - knzhou 7y ago
    That's true, but "1%" is already adjusted for this effect -- in the early days when China was getting overwhelmed, the number was much higher. 1% is the number that we've stabilized on within countries doing proactive, mass testing.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  If 80% of people will have no symptoms, and testing is being as conservative as it is (people going untested unless they show clear symptoms), then that is how math works. It suggests that that 20% encompasses at least those being tested, if not others too.
  - flukus 7y ago
    > If 80% of people will have no symptoms I don't disagree, but it's not as skewed as you think. A lot of that 80% will be very ill and get tested, a 'mild' case is basically anyone not attached to an oxygen tank. Edit - Sigh, from the WHO: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses > The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, tiredness, and dry cough. Some patients may have aches and pains, nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat or diarrhea. These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don't feel unwell. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing special treatment. Around 1 out of every 6 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing. "80% of people will have no symptoms" is not true.