4 ms·

Doesn't the fact that so many people have it, and the vast majority of them don't even get sick enough to request medical care -- or to make it obvious in retro

Doesn't the fact that so many people have it, and the vast majority of them don't even get sick enough to request medical care -- or to make it obvious in retrospect who they got the virus from -- suggest that the virus is much less deadly than originally feared?

adventured 7y ago
No. Based on the cases so far, we have a decent idea of the mortality rate. 2-3% is a reasonable figure. That's anywhere from - roughly - 30 to 60 times higher than the common flu depending on the year you source. It might suggest that not very many people are multiple weeks into having it; possibly that not very many older people have it yet (drastically higher mortality rate for people over ~50-60 years of age); and or a combination of the two. If 3,000 people have it in the US right now, undetected (some may be at home, sick, in the second week of having it, thinking it's the common flu; or the symptoms may be mild enough to not alarm in most cases), they may be in the first week or two of having it. If 300 of those people have had it long enough to die from it, and 2-3% of those people do die from it, you're only talking about maybe 6-10 people (point being, it'd be a small number).
- nostromo 7y ago
  2-3% is not a reasonable estimate. It keeps getting lowered, especially in a western context with better medical care. 2% was an early estimate in a Chinese context, but even there it's going down as more cases are identified. Now people are estimating 1.5%, 1%, or even less. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
  - adventured 7y ago
    2-3% wasn't an early estimate for China. It's the figure. It's based on the reported total cases and reported deaths. We have no other figures to go on out of China other than what they've officially reported (anything else is pointless speculation, we could each claim anything). The death rate there is in that 2-3% range so far. I do agree, generally, with your point that highly developed healthcare systems should be able to get the mortality rate under whatever the figures are in China. That might only mean 1.5% to 2% though, given China's reported mortality figure is closer to the high 3% area.
    - nostromo 7y ago
      It's the figure of deaths in china / verified cases -- and we know that the verified cases is low. In any case, I'll just go with The New England Journal of Medicine on this one, not some online spook. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
      - adventured 7y ago
        So far China has around ~3,000 deaths on ~80,000 cases. 3.75% What are you trying to refute about that exactly? Those are China's reported numbers. Online spook? I have no idea what you're talking about. Your only alternative is to say, flat out, that China's figures are wrong / a lie (Which figures though - deaths? Cases? Both? Is the mortality rate even higher?). And once you do that, we can all just start making up numbers at will.
        downerending 7y ago
        Here's an amateur rejoinder: It's possible, if not probable, that the infections have actually spread far more widely than what has currently been detected. Those wider cases may have been almost entirely silent, and resolved without significant incident. If that's true, then the actual rate of fatalities (or even serious cases) might be a lot lower than first thought. The truth, of course, is that currently no one really knows at present. Right now we have educated guesses at best.
    - gremlinsinc 7y ago
      Wouldn't this also only assume that we don't tax the current system? Since, you can still be 'critical' need a ventilator/icu, but not die, would mean that if there aren't available beds/equipment, the mortality rate goes up, am I right? Being as we have around 96,000 ICU beds, and 64,000 ventilators. Could that drive up the mortality to 4-8% simply due to unpreparedness?
      - taylodl 7y ago
        Correct. What we know so far is 80% of those infected show mild to no symptoms. 20% of those infected require hospitalization. Of that 20%, roughly 15% perish. The problem is we can't tell who that 15% are. So we treat everybody equally. To your point, IF there were a massive outbreak in the United States far more than 3% would be expected to die due to our medical resources being depleted. This is one of the reasons the flu of 1918 was so deadly - medical resources were depleted. There's a good documentary about it (the 1918 flu) on Netflix.
- JetSetWilly 7y ago
  Seems very much like an overestimate to me. The best data point is the Diamond Princess cruise ship as there we see all infections within a population, not just the ones severe enough that they end up getting tested. And what we have so far there is 5 fatalities from 800 infections (and that in a population that definitely skews on the older side, it being a cruise ship). If the mortality rate was 2-3% we would expect to see 16-24 deaths - in fact probably significantly more than that given the age of the passengers.
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago
    I saw an article also, stating this may be genetically disposed to affecting asian/chinese genomes more drastically, than caucasian or african american, can't be certain, but that could cause differing results. Can't remember the link, or how accurate that was.

adventured 7y ago

No. Based on the cases so far, we have a decent idea of the mortality rate. 2-3% is a reasonable figure. That's anywhere from - roughly - 30 to 60 times higher than the common flu depending on the year you source. It might suggest that not very many people are multiple weeks into having it; possibly that not very many older people have it yet (drastically higher mortality rate for people over ~50-60 years of age); and or a combination of the two. If 3,000 people have it in the US right now, undetected (some may be at home, sick, in the second week of having it, thinking it's the common flu; or the symptoms may be mild enough to not alarm in most cases), they may be in the first week or two of having it. If 300 of those people have had it long enough to die from it, and 2-3% of those people do die from it, you're only talking about maybe 6-10 people (point being, it'd be a small number).

nostromo 7y ago
2-3% is not a reasonable estimate. It keeps getting lowered, especially in a western context with better medical care. 2% was an early estimate in a Chinese context, but even there it's going down as more cases are identified. Now people are estimating 1.5%, 1%, or even less. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
- adventured 7y ago
  2-3% wasn't an early estimate for China. It's the figure. It's based on the reported total cases and reported deaths. We have no other figures to go on out of China other than what they've officially reported (anything else is pointless speculation, we could each claim anything). The death rate there is in that 2-3% range so far. I do agree, generally, with your point that highly developed healthcare systems should be able to get the mortality rate under whatever the figures are in China. That might only mean 1.5% to 2% though, given China's reported mortality figure is closer to the high 3% area.
  - nostromo 7y ago
    It's the figure of deaths in china / verified cases -- and we know that the verified cases is low. In any case, I'll just go with The New England Journal of Medicine on this one, not some online spook. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
    - adventured 7y ago
      So far China has around ~3,000 deaths on ~80,000 cases. 3.75% What are you trying to refute about that exactly? Those are China's reported numbers. Online spook? I have no idea what you're talking about. Your only alternative is to say, flat out, that China's figures are wrong / a lie (Which figures though - deaths? Cases? Both? Is the mortality rate even higher?). And once you do that, we can all just start making up numbers at will.
      - downerending 7y ago
        Here's an amateur rejoinder: It's possible, if not probable, that the infections have actually spread far more widely than what has currently been detected. Those wider cases may have been almost entirely silent, and resolved without significant incident. If that's true, then the actual rate of fatalities (or even serious cases) might be a lot lower than first thought. The truth, of course, is that currently no one really knows at present. Right now we have educated guesses at best.
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago
    Wouldn't this also only assume that we don't tax the current system? Since, you can still be 'critical' need a ventilator/icu, but not die, would mean that if there aren't available beds/equipment, the mortality rate goes up, am I right? Being as we have around 96,000 ICU beds, and 64,000 ventilators. Could that drive up the mortality to 4-8% simply due to unpreparedness?
    - taylodl 7y ago
      Correct. What we know so far is 80% of those infected show mild to no symptoms. 20% of those infected require hospitalization. Of that 20%, roughly 15% perish. The problem is we can't tell who that 15% are. So we treat everybody equally. To your point, IF there were a massive outbreak in the United States far more than 3% would be expected to die due to our medical resources being depleted. This is one of the reasons the flu of 1918 was so deadly - medical resources were depleted. There's a good documentary about it (the 1918 flu) on Netflix.
JetSetWilly 7y ago
Seems very much like an overestimate to me. The best data point is the Diamond Princess cruise ship as there we see all infections within a population, not just the ones severe enough that they end up getting tested. And what we have so far there is 5 fatalities from 800 infections (and that in a population that definitely skews on the older side, it being a cruise ship). If the mortality rate was 2-3% we would expect to see 16-24 deaths - in fact probably significantly more than that given the age of the passengers.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  I saw an article also, stating this may be genetically disposed to affecting asian/chinese genomes more drastically, than caucasian or african american, can't be certain, but that could cause differing results. Can't remember the link, or how accurate that was.