6 ms·

EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take precautions or that it's not worth protecting vulnerable groups. I'm simply suggesting that p

EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take precautions or that it's not worth protecting vulnerable groups. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps there is news coverage about other things (remember the whole Hong Kong situation that we aren't hearing about suddenly?) that might still deserve some air time. The media is profiting off this story big time. It's like when the plane went missing and a news station actually put some moron on the air who said there's technically a chance a black hole swallowed the plane. It's disgraceful, to be honest. That said, it looks like the rate of fatalities is overblown significantly [0](0.2% in a healthy population (COMPARED WITH THE 3.4% NUMBER BEING SPOUTED ALL OVER THE PLACE). I've yet to see coverage that is remotely reputable about long-term health effects after recovery. EDIT 2 - Case in point about premature statements being made. > [1]“I think it is likely we’ll see a global pandemic,” said Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “If a pandemic happens, 40% to 70% of people world-wide are likely to be infected in the coming year. What proportion of those will be symptomatic, I can’t give a good number.” followed by: > [2]"Because I am now less certain of where the R0 will end up (and how it may vary geographically) I am going to revise downward the range of outcomes I consider plausible to 20%-60% of adults infected. This involves subjectivity about what range of R0 may turn out to be true." [0] https://institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/analyses/first_adjusted_mortality_estimates_and_risk_assessment/2019-nCoV-preliminary_age_and_time_adjusted_mortality_rates_and_pandemic_risk_assessment.html https://institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/an... [1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-people-might-one-person-with-coronavirus-infect-11581676200?mod=rsswn https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-people-might-one-perso... [2]https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1234879949946814464 https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1234879949946814464

tmaly 7y ago
I would like to see more details about those affected, age, immuno compromised or not, asthma or not. Its hard to really draw any comparison to flu or anything else as things stand right now.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-... is quite good, WHO.int have publications on it if you want a more trusted source (but this one seems good to me).
  - jcadam 7y ago
    Hard to find numbers on asthma, specifically. I have mild persistent asthma, for example, which for me means if I take a daily (low) dose of an inhaled corticosteroid, I can generally go about my business like a normal person and almost never need to use my rescue inhaler. I've only seen stats for COVID-19 fatalities for people with "respiratory conditions." Which could be anything from mild asthma on up to stuff like emphysema and cystic fibrosis. I know, insufficient data.
mobilefriendly 7y ago
SARS, which is closely related to Covid-19, has caused chronic problems in some patients. Here's a reputable source on that from 2010: https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars_survivors_struggle_with_symptoms_years_later.html https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...
- Proziam 7y ago
  I appreciate the source. I'm still hopeful that the long-term effects of Covid-19 will turn out to be less dramatic than SARS but only time will tell I suppose.
NhanH 7y ago
It is getting annoying that people keeps comparing different numbers to make their points. If you are using 0.2% mortality rate in a healthy population, you have to compare it with the flu mortality's rate in a healthy population, which is still a magnitude lower. It's disgraceful, to be honest, to compare mortality rates on different population at all. And I'm just gonna quote your link directly to make my point, I'm fairly upset at people calling it a bad flu at this point. "While this correction does not change the assessment that COVID-19 exhibits severe pandemic potential in the absence of effective interventions, the shift in framing brought about by this three-fold revision from ‘possibly comparable to the 1957 flu but not 1918’ to ‘possibly comparable to 1918’ may meaningfully impact risk perception."
- Proziam 7y ago
  So, in your opinion, the news coverage is totally justified and the lack of coverage for every other subject is okay? There's already 'effective interventions' being discussed openly from n95 masks to quarantines and travel restrictions. Getting irritated at me for pointing out that the average person is not at severe risk of death, contrary to what the media is currently saying, seems a bit of an over-reaction.
  - pault 7y ago
    That's not much consolation if someone close to you dies. I'm frustrated with the lack of empathy on display in discussions about this virus. People see 2% and then blow it off because "it probably won't happen to me". Those numbers represent real people with loved ones that will be 100% dead.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure the figures I read were 1% mortality with Covid19, 1:400,000 for flu (in UK). It was that order of magnitude. So perhaps like saying chlorine is harmless because people drink it. It's a "well yes, but no ..." situation.
  - eveningcoffee 7y ago
allendoerfer 7y ago
Also is Australia still burning? A burning continent seemed important before the virus, not anymore.
- T-A 7y ago
  No, I think they switched to flooding now: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/australia/new-south-wales-fires-extinguished-scli-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/australia/new-south-wales...
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    We've got the plague of locusts in Africa, though. Really been a rough half year.
    - divbzero 7y ago
      This subthread reads like an excerpt from the Bible.
- CraigJPerry 7y ago
  Not really anymore, no https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/ https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
fooey 7y ago
Given there's no herd immunity, and the virulance of the strain, estimates are 40-70% of the population will contract the virus within a year 0.2% of 40% of the US Population is 260,000 deaths within a year[1] "it's just the flu" greatly underappreciates just how deadly influenza actually is If the mortality rate is more in the 2%+ range, we're looking at millions of deaths in the US alone. [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.2%25+of+40%25+of+US+Population https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.2%25+of+40%25+of+US+...
- Proziam 7y ago
  I've seen very different estimates. I'm gonna go off on a limb and say that there's probably more misinformation out there than real information. People should remain calm, take [0]reasonable precautions, and make decisions based on the latest information from credible sources such as the [1]CDC - rather than the media. [0]https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1235247642814214145 https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1235247642814214145 [1]https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/related-stigma.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/related-stig...
  - fooey 7y ago
    The 40-70% number is from a Harvard Professor of Epidemiology https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-people-might-one-person-with-coronavirus-infect-11581676200?mod=rsswn https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-people-might-one-perso... > “I think it is likely we’ll see a global pandemic,” said Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “If a pandemic happens, 40% to 70% of people world-wide are likely to be infected in the coming year. What proportion of those will be symptomatic, I can’t give a good number.”
    - Proziam 7y ago
      "If", then he goes on to give a huge range, and then goes on to say that he can't give even an estimate of what percentage would be symptomatic. Then, he goes on to give an entirely different range on Twitter, including another statement that he should have said "without effective controls" - https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1234879949946814464?s=20 https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1234879949946814464?s=2... So, basically, you proved my point that everyone is so damn eager to talk about this that they'll make claims without sufficient evidence and scare people into distress.
sersi 7y ago
As someone who is in Hong Kong, there's a good reason you don't hear about the Hong Kong situation. A lot of people in Hong Kong are in pseudo self quarantine, working remotely, going to school remotely, avoiding any areas with a lot of people, wearing masks all the time,... This doesn't lead to protesting easily. It doesn't stop the fact that pretty much everyone here is unhappy with Carrie Lam. And to be fair, the relatively slow growth of the number of cases we have in Hong Kong might be due to all the precautions people take (although I haven't found any information on the total number of people tested in Hong Kong so it might be because not enough people are tested)

tmaly 7y ago

I would like to see more details about those affected, age, immuno compromised or not, asthma or not. Its hard to really draw any comparison to flu or anything else as things stand right now.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-... is quite good, WHO.int have publications on it if you want a more trusted source (but this one seems good to me).
- jcadam 7y ago
  Hard to find numbers on asthma, specifically. I have mild persistent asthma, for example, which for me means if I take a daily (low) dose of an inhaled corticosteroid, I can generally go about my business like a normal person and almost never need to use my rescue inhaler. I've only seen stats for COVID-19 fatalities for people with "respiratory conditions." Which could be anything from mild asthma on up to stuff like emphysema and cystic fibrosis. I know, insufficient data.

mobilefriendly 7y ago

SARS, which is closely related to Covid-19, has caused chronic problems in some patients. Here's a reputable source on that from 2010: https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars_survivors_struggle_with_symptoms_years_later.html https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...

Proziam 7y ago
I appreciate the source. I'm still hopeful that the long-term effects of Covid-19 will turn out to be less dramatic than SARS but only time will tell I suppose.

NhanH 7y ago

It is getting annoying that people keeps comparing different numbers to make their points. If you are using 0.2% mortality rate in a healthy population, you have to compare it with the flu mortality's rate in a healthy population, which is still a magnitude lower. It's disgraceful, to be honest, to compare mortality rates on different population at all. And I'm just gonna quote your link directly to make my point, I'm fairly upset at people calling it a bad flu at this point. "While this correction does not change the assessment that COVID-19 exhibits severe pandemic potential in the absence of effective interventions, the shift in framing brought about by this three-fold revision from ‘possibly comparable to the 1957 flu but not 1918’ to ‘possibly comparable to 1918’ may meaningfully impact risk perception."

Proziam 7y ago
So, in your opinion, the news coverage is totally justified and the lack of coverage for every other subject is okay? There's already 'effective interventions' being discussed openly from n95 masks to quarantines and travel restrictions. Getting irritated at me for pointing out that the average person is not at severe risk of death, contrary to what the media is currently saying, seems a bit of an over-reaction.
- pault 7y ago
  That's not much consolation if someone close to you dies. I'm frustrated with the lack of empathy on display in discussions about this virus. People see 2% and then blow it off because "it probably won't happen to me". Those numbers represent real people with loved ones that will be 100% dead.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I'm pretty sure the figures I read were 1% mortality with Covid19, 1:400,000 for flu (in UK). It was that order of magnitude. So perhaps like saying chlorine is harmless because people drink it. It's a "well yes, but no ..." situation.
- eveningcoffee 7y ago

allendoerfer 7y ago

Also is Australia still burning? A burning continent seemed important before the virus, not anymore.

T-A 7y ago
No, I think they switched to flooding now: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/australia/new-south-wales-fires-extinguished-scli-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/australia/new-south-wales...
- Symmetry 7y ago
  We've got the plague of locusts in Africa, though. Really been a rough half year.
  - divbzero 7y ago
    This subthread reads like an excerpt from the Bible.
CraigJPerry 7y ago
Not really anymore, no https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/ https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

fooey 7y ago

Given there's no herd immunity, and the virulance of the strain, estimates are 40-70% of the population will contract the virus within a year 0.2% of 40% of the US Population is 260,000 deaths within a year[1] "it's just the flu" greatly underappreciates just how deadly influenza actually is If the mortality rate is more in the 2%+ range, we're looking at millions of deaths in the US alone. [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.2%25+of+40%25+of+US+Population https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.2%25+of+40%25+of+US+...

Proziam 7y ago
I've seen very different estimates. I'm gonna go off on a limb and say that there's probably more misinformation out there than real information. People should remain calm, take [0]reasonable precautions, and make decisions based on the latest information from credible sources such as the [1]CDC - rather than the media. [0]https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1235247642814214145 https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1235247642814214145 [1]https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/related-stigma.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/related-stig...
- fooey 7y ago
  The 40-70% number is from a Harvard Professor of Epidemiology https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-people-might-one-person-with-coronavirus-infect-11581676200?mod=rsswn https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-people-might-one-perso... > “I think it is likely we’ll see a global pandemic,” said Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “If a pandemic happens, 40% to 70% of people world-wide are likely to be infected in the coming year. What proportion of those will be symptomatic, I can’t give a good number.”
  - Proziam 7y ago
    "If", then he goes on to give a huge range, and then goes on to say that he can't give even an estimate of what percentage would be symptomatic. Then, he goes on to give an entirely different range on Twitter, including another statement that he should have said "without effective controls" - https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1234879949946814464?s=20 https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1234879949946814464?s=2... So, basically, you proved my point that everyone is so damn eager to talk about this that they'll make claims without sufficient evidence and scare people into distress.

sersi 7y ago

As someone who is in Hong Kong, there's a good reason you don't hear about the Hong Kong situation. A lot of people in Hong Kong are in pseudo self quarantine, working remotely, going to school remotely, avoiding any areas with a lot of people, wearing masks all the time,... This doesn't lead to protesting easily. It doesn't stop the fact that pretty much everyone here is unhappy with Carrie Lam. And to be fair, the relatively slow growth of the number of cases we have in Hong Kong might be due to all the precautions people take (although I haven't found any information on the total number of people tested in Hong Kong so it might be because not enough people are tested)