8 ms·

From the death %, symptoms, and recovery stats, it really is mostly "just the flu". If you are otherwise healthy, this is like getting a cold with a fever for

From the death %, symptoms, and recovery stats, it really is mostly "just the flu". If you are otherwise healthy, this is like getting a cold with a fever for a week, then feeling better. Sure, call it a pandemic, because it is worldwide. But honestly it's just not that remarkable. This isn't some godly virus with 25% death rates!

Waterluvian 7y ago
Where do you live that CV is 20-30x less deadly than elsewhere? From the numbers I'm seeing, it's not just the flu.
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  30x of 0.1% still ain't bad.
  - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
    200 million people (probably more in reality because of how overwhelmed the healthcare system would be) dying isn't bad?
    - abstractbarista 7y ago
      Seasonal flu kills 291k to 646k people each year...
      - tigershark 7y ago
        This will kill 2 orders of magnitude more. Sounds good to have 30-70 millions deaths?
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    3% of people who catch a highly infectious disease dying of it is _ridiculously_ bad.
abnry 7y ago
It is remarkable, it's just not civilization destroying. Lots of old and vulnerable people will die. The healthcare system will be taxed for many months to come.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Also the economy will get beaten up, with lots of people finding themselves suddenly in financial distress, and generally almost everyone will have it worse than it would be if the virus never happened.
  - abstractbarista 7y ago
    This is where most of the fear should actually be directed. There are huge losses in productivity, income, and general enjoyment of life.
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  that remarkable refers to a lower degree of "remarkability" than that stated by OP. It is remarkable in that it is novel, but that's mostly it.
empath75 7y ago
It's collapsing health care systems every where it breaks out. It doesn't take a high hospitalization rate before the CFR jumps way up. Italy's is 4% because they're just letting older people die because they don't have the resources to treat them.
- ziotom78 7y ago
  I am an Italian and live in Bergamo, the Italian town that is so far the most affected. The impression that Italy is letting older people die is false, at least at the moment [1]; however, there are people that suggest this might be a guideline to be followed, should the virus continue spreading. I believe that the somewhat higher mortality rate in Italy could partly be due to the fact that our mean age is higher than in other European countries [2]. [1] https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/bergamo-citta/evitiamo-i-contagi-stando-a-casasegui-la-conferenza-stampa-in-regione_1344632_11/ https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/bergamo-citta/evitiamo-i... (Italian) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_ag...
  - empath75 7y ago
    are you sure? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-h...
    - ziotom78 7y ago
      Yes, I am sure, and the article you quote confirms this: > "It may become necessary to establish an age limit for access to intensive care." [Emphasis mine]
odorousrex 7y ago
This is misinformation, and spreading misinformation like this is not helping anyone, and can actively hurt people. Please educate yourself: https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
JulianMorrison 7y ago
80-something percent of the time yes. The remainder is divided between "you need hospital, but will be fine" and "serious intensive care needed". The trouble is that (1) the people who need hospital to be fine need hospital. They won't be fine if it isn't there, and (2) by being a selfish ass and treating it like just the flu, when it's a disease that grows exponentially in a no-immunity population, people are amplifying the speed and height of the peak, which means not enough hospital places. If you get a situation where effectively nobody who needs hospital can get it - then those 20-ish percent just drop dead. And then there's your godly death rate.
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  It's not selfish to treat something like the flu. This means I wash my hands, get vaccinated yearly, and take other common-sense precautions. That's not "being an ass", it's being rational.
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    Common sense precautions here are much more stringent than the flu. Nobody is immune. There is no vaccination. Herd immunity is nil. And it's very infectious. This is a new thing and you should treat it as a new thing. There has not in living memory been one this bad, against which we had no defense except to avoid catching it and spreading it.
    - abstractbarista 7y ago
      Actually MERS was far more scary with a death rate around 34% (from WHO). It just didn't transmit so well.
  - Tyr42 7y ago
    There isn't a vaccine yet.
    - abstractbarista 7y ago
BlargMcLarg 7y ago
Except the statistics have been so wildly different across sources it'd be very unwise to follow any of them, and instead check the stories where possible. Only yesterday someone posted the accounts of people in Italy being overwhelmed. Last time I checked, a regular flu doesn't smash through a hospital's capacity so hard they have to ask doctors to change focus.
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  The thing is, that infrastructure already prepared yearly for the flu. They have capacity designed around it. It is "normal" for thousands to die from the flu yearly, and nobody says anything. (Except that you should obviously be vaccinated.)
  - tigershark 7y ago
    If this will reach the same infection numbers as the flu the deaths in US would be many millions. Do you think that it’s the same thing?
    - mcguire 7y ago
      There were an estimated 44,000,000 flu cases in the US in 2017-2018. Assuming a worst-case-with-current-data death rate of 3.5%, that's about 1,500,000 deaths. Not millions.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  I think you're referring to a Twitter thread where a doctor relayed descriptions of hospital conditions from another doctor in Lombardy. It was a horrifying story (and scared me, I admit), but I would suggest caution. Unless there's information that's not making it out of Italy, the death statistics reported today don't seem to align with the picture painted by those tweets.
tigershark 7y ago
It’s around 4% of mortality, the flu in US kills about 2 orders of magnitude less.
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  False, it is currently thought to be between 0.5-4%. But this is probably a high estimate, because many or most cases have not been detected. https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
  - tigershark 7y ago
    Did you even read what you linked? “Earlier in the epidemic, there was hope that 3.5 percent was grossly overestimated, however as evidence continues to emerge, there is dwindling support for that hope.”
    - abstractbarista 7y ago
      Yes. Look at the blue graph. 0.5~4%.
- GhostVII 7y ago
  I think it is too early to say much about the mortality rate. 4% is an upper bound, since that is how many lab confirmed cases have resulted in death, but that doesn't account for all of the minor cases where people didn't even know they had it.
  - eveningcoffee 7y ago
    4% might be an upper bound under normal situation when there is sufficient availability of intensive care places. When these places become saturated then % of mortality will approach % of people needing intensive care. Please also note that many people who require intensive care but survive are left with huge chronic damage to their lungs that will affect their quality of life for the rest of their lives.
brazzledazzle 7y ago
Are we allowed to flag a comment because it contains advice that could result in harm or death?
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  Might as well try?
fzeroracer 7y ago
Something doesn't have to have 25% death rates to be dangerous. Your way of thinking is quite frankly not only flawed but also incredibly harmful to the actual dangers of the coronavirus. Which is that entire communities can be infected in a very short amount of time, overwhelming local medical infrastructure and resulting in deaths and harm because the doctors simply can't keep up. What was originally something that could be treated then becomes life threatening.

Waterluvian 7y ago

Where do you live that CV is 20-30x less deadly than elsewhere? From the numbers I'm seeing, it's not just the flu.

abstractbarista 7y ago
30x of 0.1% still ain't bad.
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  200 million people (probably more in reality because of how overwhelmed the healthcare system would be) dying isn't bad?
  - abstractbarista 7y ago
    Seasonal flu kills 291k to 646k people each year...
    - tigershark 7y ago
      This will kill 2 orders of magnitude more. Sounds good to have 30-70 millions deaths?
- rsynnott 7y ago
  3% of people who catch a highly infectious disease dying of it is _ridiculously_ bad.

abnry 7y ago

It is remarkable, it's just not civilization destroying. Lots of old and vulnerable people will die. The healthcare system will be taxed for many months to come.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Also the economy will get beaten up, with lots of people finding themselves suddenly in financial distress, and generally almost everyone will have it worse than it would be if the virus never happened.
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  This is where most of the fear should actually be directed. There are huge losses in productivity, income, and general enjoyment of life.
abstractbarista 7y ago
that remarkable refers to a lower degree of "remarkability" than that stated by OP. It is remarkable in that it is novel, but that's mostly it.

empath75 7y ago

It's collapsing health care systems every where it breaks out. It doesn't take a high hospitalization rate before the CFR jumps way up. Italy's is 4% because they're just letting older people die because they don't have the resources to treat them.

ziotom78 7y ago
I am an Italian and live in Bergamo, the Italian town that is so far the most affected. The impression that Italy is letting older people die is false, at least at the moment [1]; however, there are people that suggest this might be a guideline to be followed, should the virus continue spreading. I believe that the somewhat higher mortality rate in Italy could partly be due to the fact that our mean age is higher than in other European countries [2]. [1] https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/bergamo-citta/evitiamo-i-contagi-stando-a-casasegui-la-conferenza-stampa-in-regione_1344632_11/ https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/bergamo-citta/evitiamo-i... (Italian) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_ag...
- empath75 7y ago
  are you sure? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-h...
  - ziotom78 7y ago
    Yes, I am sure, and the article you quote confirms this: > "It may become necessary to establish an age limit for access to intensive care." [Emphasis mine]

odorousrex 7y ago

This is misinformation, and spreading misinformation like this is not helping anyone, and can actively hurt people. Please educate yourself: https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ https://www.flattenthecurve.com/

JulianMorrison 7y ago

80-something percent of the time yes. The remainder is divided between "you need hospital, but will be fine" and "serious intensive care needed". The trouble is that (1) the people who need hospital to be fine need hospital. They won't be fine if it isn't there, and (2) by being a selfish ass and treating it like just the flu, when it's a disease that grows exponentially in a no-immunity population, people are amplifying the speed and height of the peak, which means not enough hospital places. If you get a situation where effectively nobody who needs hospital can get it - then those 20-ish percent just drop dead. And then there's your godly death rate.

abstractbarista 7y ago
It's not selfish to treat something like the flu. This means I wash my hands, get vaccinated yearly, and take other common-sense precautions. That's not "being an ass", it's being rational.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  Common sense precautions here are much more stringent than the flu. Nobody is immune. There is no vaccination. Herd immunity is nil. And it's very infectious. This is a new thing and you should treat it as a new thing. There has not in living memory been one this bad, against which we had no defense except to avoid catching it and spreading it.
  - abstractbarista 7y ago
    Actually MERS was far more scary with a death rate around 34% (from WHO). It just didn't transmit so well.
- Tyr42 7y ago
  There isn't a vaccine yet.
  - abstractbarista 7y ago

BlargMcLarg 7y ago

Except the statistics have been so wildly different across sources it'd be very unwise to follow any of them, and instead check the stories where possible. Only yesterday someone posted the accounts of people in Italy being overwhelmed. Last time I checked, a regular flu doesn't smash through a hospital's capacity so hard they have to ask doctors to change focus.

abstractbarista 7y ago
The thing is, that infrastructure already prepared yearly for the flu. They have capacity designed around it. It is "normal" for thousands to die from the flu yearly, and nobody says anything. (Except that you should obviously be vaccinated.)
- tigershark 7y ago
  If this will reach the same infection numbers as the flu the deaths in US would be many millions. Do you think that it’s the same thing?
  - mcguire 7y ago
    There were an estimated 44,000,000 flu cases in the US in 2017-2018. Assuming a worst-case-with-current-data death rate of 3.5%, that's about 1,500,000 deaths. Not millions.
wool_gather 7y ago
I think you're referring to a Twitter thread where a doctor relayed descriptions of hospital conditions from another doctor in Lombardy. It was a horrifying story (and scared me, I admit), but I would suggest caution. Unless there's information that's not making it out of Italy, the death statistics reported today don't seem to align with the picture painted by those tweets.

tigershark 7y ago

It’s around 4% of mortality, the flu in US kills about 2 orders of magnitude less.

abstractbarista 7y ago
False, it is currently thought to be between 0.5-4%. But this is probably a high estimate, because many or most cases have not been detected. https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
- tigershark 7y ago
  Did you even read what you linked? “Earlier in the epidemic, there was hope that 3.5 percent was grossly overestimated, however as evidence continues to emerge, there is dwindling support for that hope.”
  - abstractbarista 7y ago
    Yes. Look at the blue graph. 0.5~4%.
GhostVII 7y ago
I think it is too early to say much about the mortality rate. 4% is an upper bound, since that is how many lab confirmed cases have resulted in death, but that doesn't account for all of the minor cases where people didn't even know they had it.
- eveningcoffee 7y ago
  4% might be an upper bound under normal situation when there is sufficient availability of intensive care places. When these places become saturated then % of mortality will approach % of people needing intensive care. Please also note that many people who require intensive care but survive are left with huge chronic damage to their lungs that will affect their quality of life for the rest of their lives.

brazzledazzle 7y ago

Are we allowed to flag a comment because it contains advice that could result in harm or death?

abstractbarista 7y ago
Might as well try?

fzeroracer 7y ago

Something doesn't have to have 25% death rates to be dangerous. Your way of thinking is quite frankly not only flawed but also incredibly harmful to the actual dangers of the coronavirus. Which is that entire communities can be infected in a very short amount of time, overwhelming local medical infrastructure and resulting in deaths and harm because the doctors simply can't keep up. What was originally something that could be treated then becomes life threatening.