12 ms·

Except that it is doubtful that it actually has a 2% death rate. Some huge number of coronavirus infections are not being counted because they are asymptomatic

by jbotz 7y ago

Except that it is doubtful that it actually has a 2% death rate. Some huge number of coronavirus infections are not being counted because they are asymptomatic or presenting minimal symptoms[1], and thus those people aren't being tested. In fact, probably even a lot of people with fairly serious symptoms aren't being tested[2]. Only those being tested can test positive and only those testing positive are getting counted, inflating the presumed mortality rate massively. On top of that it seems the tests being used may be giving a lot of false negatives, for example in people who have "recovered" and test negative but then later test positive again, so they may have still been infectious all along. Bottom line; when you really look at all the facts, it seems that perhaps Covid-19 is no more lethal than any more severe flu. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/asia/coronavirus-treament-recovery.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/asia/coronavirus-tr... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/fayko1/my_covid19_story_brooklyn/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/fayko1/my_covid19_stor...

ShorsHammer 7y ago
This is something I always find strange when people make these basic extrapolations with insane numbers for deaths. Someone who never presents to hospital or gets tested can very much be infected and would never get counted in this estimated mortality rate. Our flu numbers aren't the same. Epidemiologists estimate infection rates. They don't test 700 million people a year to see if they have the flu. Flu is still a far bigger health concern but virtually everyone shrugs it off as a fact of life.
- OJFord 7y ago
  > Flu is still a far bigger health concern but virtually everyone shrugs it off as a fact of life. Because it has been a fact of life for the entirety of everyone living's life. nCoV is a new threat that can kill, of course people will worry about it, it's instinctual. We also don't have a vaccine for it yet, and an estimated 30% of infected people need hospital treatment, which is surely more than the usual flu, and requires more specialised & cautious care since less about it's known. As the US' CDC says in the other nCoV post on the home page: > The complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not fully understood. It might just blow over and be fine, sure, but I don't think the response or caution surrounding it is irrational.
  - MyelinatedT 7y ago
    > an estimated 30% of infected people need hospital treatment, which is surely more than the usual flu That sounds like an extraordinarily high estimate. How could we have an accurate estimate of hospitalisation proportions without even knowing how many infections are out in the community? It seems very, very likely that we are missing the vast majority of cases given the tests are pretty inaccurate, and we only bother administering them to people who are either extremely sick already, or who have been in an "affected region" (realistically, every region is "affected" at this point).
    - OJFord 7y ago
      I have no idea; it's not a job I envy. But what I read in the UK was that looking increasingly like 'about 50%' would be infected, 'but only 30%' of those would actually need medical attention. Something similar came from the US with '40-70%' instead of 'about 50'. But yes, a large part of the concern, particularly for government bodies coming out with these figures is preparedness; so they probably are erring on the side of 'more resources needed' in these estimates. But why not? Better over-prepared than under, not that that's looking likely.
    - dwd 7y ago
      The latest discussions going around are that there appears to be a neurological aspect that causes/triggers apnea, hence the need for mechanical breathing assistance. Possibly the reason why people are also seeming to just be dropping in the streets. This is where the medical system is most limited in how much equipment they have on hand. We are missing a lot of cases because they had been limiting testing to individuals coming from infected areas and those who directly contact them, which is why we are now seeing it appear in the general community. It's going to be bad. Not societal collapse bad, but simply that if you think of 100 people you know, a few of them (particularly those that are elderly, immune suppressed or sick) are likely to die if they get infected. I think the path forward has to be protecting the vulnerable, like strictly quarantining aged-care facilities, cancer wards, etc to protect the residents.
thorin 7y ago
That seems correct. When swine flu was in the UK (around 2010), I had really bad flu. I went to the doctor for blood tests etc. I recovered in around a week without intervention but was weak for quite a while afterwards. In the end I seem to remember them saying that I probably had swine flu but there was not point testing now, so I wouldn't have been included in the statistics.

by jbotz 7y ago

ShorsHammer 7y ago

This is something I always find strange when people make these basic extrapolations with insane numbers for deaths. Someone who never presents to hospital or gets tested can very much be infected and would never get counted in this estimated mortality rate. Our flu numbers aren't the same. Epidemiologists estimate infection rates. They don't test 700 million people a year to see if they have the flu. Flu is still a far bigger health concern but virtually everyone shrugs it off as a fact of life.

OJFord 7y ago
> Flu is still a far bigger health concern but virtually everyone shrugs it off as a fact of life. Because it has been a fact of life for the entirety of everyone living's life. nCoV is a new threat that can kill, of course people will worry about it, it's instinctual. We also don't have a vaccine for it yet, and an estimated 30% of infected people need hospital treatment, which is surely more than the usual flu, and requires more specialised & cautious care since less about it's known. As the US' CDC says in the other nCoV post on the home page: > The complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not fully understood. It might just blow over and be fine, sure, but I don't think the response or caution surrounding it is irrational.
- MyelinatedT 7y ago
  > an estimated 30% of infected people need hospital treatment, which is surely more than the usual flu That sounds like an extraordinarily high estimate. How could we have an accurate estimate of hospitalisation proportions without even knowing how many infections are out in the community? It seems very, very likely that we are missing the vast majority of cases given the tests are pretty inaccurate, and we only bother administering them to people who are either extremely sick already, or who have been in an "affected region" (realistically, every region is "affected" at this point).
  - OJFord 7y ago
    I have no idea; it's not a job I envy. But what I read in the UK was that looking increasingly like 'about 50%' would be infected, 'but only 30%' of those would actually need medical attention. Something similar came from the US with '40-70%' instead of 'about 50'. But yes, a large part of the concern, particularly for government bodies coming out with these figures is preparedness; so they probably are erring on the side of 'more resources needed' in these estimates. But why not? Better over-prepared than under, not that that's looking likely.
  - dwd 7y ago
    The latest discussions going around are that there appears to be a neurological aspect that causes/triggers apnea, hence the need for mechanical breathing assistance. Possibly the reason why people are also seeming to just be dropping in the streets. This is where the medical system is most limited in how much equipment they have on hand. We are missing a lot of cases because they had been limiting testing to individuals coming from infected areas and those who directly contact them, which is why we are now seeing it appear in the general community. It's going to be bad. Not societal collapse bad, but simply that if you think of 100 people you know, a few of them (particularly those that are elderly, immune suppressed or sick) are likely to die if they get infected. I think the path forward has to be protecting the vulnerable, like strictly quarantining aged-care facilities, cancer wards, etc to protect the residents.

thorin 7y ago

That seems correct. When swine flu was in the UK (around 2010), I had really bad flu. I went to the doctor for blood tests etc. I recovered in around a week without intervention but was weak for quite a while afterwards. In the end I seem to remember them saying that I probably had swine flu but there was not point testing now, so I wouldn't have been included in the statistics.