3 ms·

It gets hospital-level serious for 20% of cases? I thought the lethality rate wasn’t even that high for the most at-risk demographics (something like 14%).

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
> It gets hospital-level serious for 20% of cases? I thought the lethality rate wasn’t even that high for the most at-risk demographics (something like 14%). Well, substantially all of the cases that end up dying go to the hospital first, and many more besides that and up recovering. It shouldn't be surprising that the hospitalization rate is higher than the fatality rate.
- fattire 7y ago
  About 15-20% require hospital care of some kind. Then depending on how prepared/overrun the health care system is, 0.6-5% cases are fatal. These numbers are ballpark and the lack of data makes it hard to know with confidence. The CFR gets more severe with age and comorbidities.
nostrademons 7y ago
Yes, hospital-level serious for 20% of cases. 5-10% require ICU care. The ~2% fatality rate is with ICU support and ventilation. When the hospitals get overrun it increases to ~7%, which is what we saw in Wuhan and now Italy. Your chance of dying if you do need hospitalization but don't get it appears to be > 50%. Death rates by age range also assume ICU care. It's virtually unheard of for healthy middle-aged people if they have access to good medical care, but plenty of 30- and 40-somethings can and have died from it once the hospitals are overrun.
- Retric 7y ago
  It’s far from clear how accurate those numbers for Italy and China are. China essentially gave up on testing the general population in Wuhan and their numbers mostly represent the most serious cases. Italy’s infections seem to be mostly centered around the elderly with 40% of infections in the 70+ age range despite 65+ year olds only representing 21.53% of their population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_I... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
    The WHO has verified China's numbers.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Sure, but they didn't go back in time to test more people.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      The WHO has verified China's numbers. Source? China plainly lied about the outcomes of the SARS epidemic and reported about half the fatality rate of nearly every other country. Hell, no Chinese person I've talked with recently believes the official numbers.
    - zhte415 7y ago
      The Lancet unverified those numbers quite a while ago https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30260-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
      - gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
        I flagged this because it was published in January nearly a month earlier than the WHO's verification. Essentially this was not in bad faith when it was published but it is now so out of date and misleading and sharing it now is dangerous in that it may cause people to ignore safety advice.
        zhte415 7y ago
        It was a nowcast. It's intended to be out of date after a while. And provide an estimation at the time. I don't understand how it is dangerous, could you explain that?... earlier action would have been better.
        gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

> It gets hospital-level serious for 20% of cases? I thought the lethality rate wasn’t even that high for the most at-risk demographics (something like 14%). Well, substantially all of the cases that end up dying go to the hospital first, and many more besides that and up recovering. It shouldn't be surprising that the hospitalization rate is higher than the fatality rate.

fattire 7y ago
About 15-20% require hospital care of some kind. Then depending on how prepared/overrun the health care system is, 0.6-5% cases are fatal. These numbers are ballpark and the lack of data makes it hard to know with confidence. The CFR gets more severe with age and comorbidities.

nostrademons 7y ago

Yes, hospital-level serious for 20% of cases. 5-10% require ICU care. The ~2% fatality rate is with ICU support and ventilation. When the hospitals get overrun it increases to ~7%, which is what we saw in Wuhan and now Italy. Your chance of dying if you do need hospitalization but don't get it appears to be > 50%. Death rates by age range also assume ICU care. It's virtually unheard of for healthy middle-aged people if they have access to good medical care, but plenty of 30- and 40-somethings can and have died from it once the hospitals are overrun.

Retric 7y ago
It’s far from clear how accurate those numbers for Italy and China are. China essentially gave up on testing the general population in Wuhan and their numbers mostly represent the most serious cases. Italy’s infections seem to be mostly centered around the elderly with 40% of infections in the 70+ age range despite 65+ year olds only representing 21.53% of their population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_I... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
  The WHO has verified China's numbers.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Sure, but they didn't go back in time to test more people.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    The WHO has verified China's numbers. Source? China plainly lied about the outcomes of the SARS epidemic and reported about half the fatality rate of nearly every other country. Hell, no Chinese person I've talked with recently believes the official numbers.
  - zhte415 7y ago
    The Lancet unverified those numbers quite a while ago https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30260-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
    - gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
      I flagged this because it was published in January nearly a month earlier than the WHO's verification. Essentially this was not in bad faith when it was published but it is now so out of date and misleading and sharing it now is dangerous in that it may cause people to ignore safety advice.
      - zhte415 7y ago
        It was a nowcast. It's intended to be out of date after a while. And provide an estimation at the time. I don't understand how it is dangerous, could you explain that?... earlier action would have been better.
        gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago