6 ms·

99% of Those Who Died from Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says

88 points by kasperni 7y ago

gentleman11 7y ago
“Other illness” is extremely vague. Apparently having had a high blood pressure reading counts. What about sore knees? Migraines? Edit: if you scroll down, you find info that is actually meaningful: a chart showing deaths by age. What this shows is that 90+% of people over 60 have had a doctors visit that turned up an issue.
- mardifoufs 7y ago
  It says in the article: "More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease" Which makes sense considering most of them were older people
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lldjjxnn 7y ago
    Heart disease is undiagnosed diabetes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoQiDaWnuE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoQiDaWnuE
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      That seems highly improbable to me. Can you give some data to back your assertion? [Edit: I see you added a Youtube video, with no further information. No, I'm not going to go watch a no-further-information-given Youtube video to find out if your claim has a scientific basis, or if you're a quack. If it's real, it ought to be in text somewhere, with data.]
      - Lldjjxnn 7y ago
        Diabetes mellitus is highly prevalent amongst patients with heart failure, especially those with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and patients with the two conditions have a higher risk of mortality compared with patients without diabetes or heart failure.[1–3] Diabetic patients have an increased risk of developing heart failure because of the abnormal cardiac handling of glucose and free fatty acids (FFAs), and because of the effect of the metabolic derangements of diabetes on the cardiovascular system. A wealth of epidemiological evidence demonstrates that diabetes mellitus is independently associated with the risk of developing heart failure, with the risk increasing by more than twofold in men and by more than fivefold in women.[1–3,6] Both population studies and clinical trials have demonstrated that diabetes mellitus significantly increases the risk of recurrent hospitalisations for heart failure and the duration of hospital stay in patients with heart failure, and it is associated with a significantly higher mortality compared with those without diabetes.[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494155/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494155/ Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women. Both obesity and diabetes mellitus are important independent risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease. Obesity is the leading risk factor for type 2 diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 32% of white and 53% of black women are obese. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066828/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066828/
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        OK. That's enough for me to buy that diabetes can (and often does) cause heart disease. It's even enough for me to buy that heart disease is often caused by undiagnosed diabetes. But your initial statement was > Heart disease is undiagnosed diabetes What you have shown here is not enough for me to buy your initial statement.
        lioeters 7y ago
        > diabetes mellitus significantly increases the risk of recurrent hospitalisations for heart failure I hadn't heard this - good to know! However, the studies you cited do not seem to support your earlier statement: > Heart disease is undiagnosed diabetes Perhaps a qualification would fit better: deaths from heart disease may have been caused by undiagnosed diabetes.
lazybreather 7y ago
About 90% of the general population have "other" illnesses.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  A third of the US population suffers from high blood pressure [1]. More than 100 million U.S. adults are now living with diabetes or prediabetes [2]. About 15 million Americans have cancer of some sort [3]. About 10 million people are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed [4]. So, you're not wrong! The high risk factor cohort is enormous, and the more risk factors you have, the higher your risk of death is (based on data coming out of Italy). A lot of folks are going to die from ailments they had and knew about, or ailments they had but didn't know about. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm [2] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-report.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-repor... [3] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html [4] https://www.google.com/search?q=americans+immunocompromised https://www.google.com/search?q=americans+immunocompromised
- Data_Junkie 7y ago
  Point being is it is much of the danger can be attributed to being in poorer health to start with. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PATHOGEN.
- guenthert 7y ago
  That might be the case, but they are certainly not older than 80.
heisenbit 7y ago
Most people dying from AIDS die from other illnesses. If something new pulls the bodily systems down across the board by viral replication, dying cells and lack of oxygen there will always be a place that is a weak spot which gives.
- guenthert 7y ago
  With AIDS attacking the immune system, this is an patently bad example.
fenesiistvan 7y ago
Multiple reports now mention this "high blood pressure" criteria. What this means more exactly? Elevated (above 120/80) also counts as high?
- exabrial 7y ago
  I also saw a report showing a co-morbidity with tobacco smokers. I'll see if I can find it.
  - jdhn 7y ago
    This makes sense seeing that cigarette smoke damages lungs.
- beagle3 7y ago
  I haven’t been able to find a good description, but I suspect it means there is a known history of high bp (which indeed is usually defined as you wrote) However, there is confounding issue of bp medicine - there was a lancer article about ibuprofen and some kinds of bp medicine causing increased ACE2 expression, which is suspected to increase susceptibility to sarscov2 and worsen covid symptoms. So, it could be that the blood pressure isn’t actually the risk factor, but treatments for it. Will take time to tell
  - arpa 7y ago
    The official position of the european cardiology association is that claims that BP medicine can increase suceptibility and worsen symptoms is basically FUD: https://www.escardio.org/Councils/Council-on-Hypertension-(CHT)/News/position-statement-of-the-esc-council-on-hypertension-on-ace-inhibitors-and-ang https://www.escardio.org/Councils/Council-on-Hypertension-(C... It is strongly suggested to keep taking your BP medication. A bonus also lies in that link: there is evidence from studies in animals suggesting that these medications might be rather protective against serious lung complications in patients with COVID-19 infection, but to date there is no data in humans. The mechanism of protective action is explained by this comment on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22505537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22505537 While the theory of ACE inhibitors/blockers making covid-19 worse is basically based upon the presumption that due to inhibition/blocking of angiotensin receptors, the body upregulates by creating more ACE receptors, to which the virus can bind.
jonrimmer 7y ago
This doesn't mean that many of those who were younger and without pre-existing illnesses weren't in a serious condition and in danger of dying, just that, with the help of intensive care, they were able to survive. If and when heath services become completely overwhelmed and there are no longer enough hospital bed/ventilators/doctors and nurses to provide the assistance they need, then we'll likely see a lot of younger and otherwise healthy people start to die as well.
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  It's that the opposite of what they are saying. In a situation where you just described when the system in italy was very openly overwhelmed young people not only didn't die there's very little evidence they got sick, to begin with
  - jpxw 7y ago
    Hope you are correct!
  - Teever 7y ago
    Was this due to triage where resources were focused on younger people with complications as the medical professionals felt that it was a better use of limited resources?
stephsmithio 7y ago
I think headlines like these are extremely detrimental to the global fight of this virus. Whether or not you're at risk (age, health problems, etc), you are a vehicle for transporting the virus and so while there is no need for "panic", it's both respectful and pragmatic to distance so that the virus can be contained.
- garraeth 7y ago
  Why? Shouldn't the truth be known? Wouldn't it be wise to know actual stats vs/ trying to hide the truth in order to propagate undue panic? Then discuss it, and options, as how to move forward with correct information vs/ guesses and/or rumors? It's sad that this report was downvoted on a site (HN) that is supposed to be so analytical.
  - cameronfraser 7y ago
    In a perfect world where everyone reacts rationally sure. However, the actual reaction to this information is that individuals deem themselves not a risk and go about their daily lives. Unfortunately they are endangering everyone who is at risk in the process.
    - ardy42 7y ago
      Yeah, there's so much complexity here that a simple number could lead someone to miss. So, 99% of those who died had another illness. Almost everyone has illnesses, so what kinds are we talking about? A patient surviving doesn't mean the patient didn't need intensive medical care. So you survived, are there any long-term symptoms you'll have to learn to live with? I've also heard that (at least in some contexts) a "mild" case of COVID-19 is defined as one that didn't need breathing assistance. That's not the colloquial definition of "mild."
  - benmmurphy 7y ago
    The article raising interesting points but there is still not enough information to make an evaluation. I'm more interested in some kind of quantification of how many years of life corona virus is taking from its victims. You could imagine a hypothetical grim reaper virus that kills you a day before you would otherwise die. This virus kills absolutely everybody in the country but it is probably not worth fighting unless it is super cheap to do so.
rayvd 7y ago
Same as with influenza.

88 points by kasperni 7y ago

“Other illness” is extremely vague. Apparently having had a high blood pressure reading counts. What about sore knees? Migraines? Edit: if you scroll down, you find info that is actually meaningful: a chart showing deaths by age. What this shows is that 90+% of people over 60 have had a doctors visit that turned up an issue.

mardifoufs 7y ago
It says in the article: "More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease" Which makes sense considering most of them were older people
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Lldjjxnn 7y ago
  Heart disease is undiagnosed diabetes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoQiDaWnuE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoQiDaWnuE
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    That seems highly improbable to me. Can you give some data to back your assertion? [Edit: I see you added a Youtube video, with no further information. No, I'm not going to go watch a no-further-information-given Youtube video to find out if your claim has a scientific basis, or if you're a quack. If it's real, it ought to be in text somewhere, with data.]
    - Lldjjxnn 7y ago
      Diabetes mellitus is highly prevalent amongst patients with heart failure, especially those with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and patients with the two conditions have a higher risk of mortality compared with patients without diabetes or heart failure.[1–3] Diabetic patients have an increased risk of developing heart failure because of the abnormal cardiac handling of glucose and free fatty acids (FFAs), and because of the effect of the metabolic derangements of diabetes on the cardiovascular system. A wealth of epidemiological evidence demonstrates that diabetes mellitus is independently associated with the risk of developing heart failure, with the risk increasing by more than twofold in men and by more than fivefold in women.[1–3,6] Both population studies and clinical trials have demonstrated that diabetes mellitus significantly increases the risk of recurrent hospitalisations for heart failure and the duration of hospital stay in patients with heart failure, and it is associated with a significantly higher mortality compared with those without diabetes.[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494155/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494155/ Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women. Both obesity and diabetes mellitus are important independent risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease. Obesity is the leading risk factor for type 2 diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 32% of white and 53% of black women are obese. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066828/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066828/
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        OK. That's enough for me to buy that diabetes can (and often does) cause heart disease. It's even enough for me to buy that heart disease is often caused by undiagnosed diabetes. But your initial statement was > Heart disease is undiagnosed diabetes What you have shown here is not enough for me to buy your initial statement.
      - lioeters 7y ago
        > diabetes mellitus significantly increases the risk of recurrent hospitalisations for heart failure I hadn't heard this - good to know! However, the studies you cited do not seem to support your earlier statement: > Heart disease is undiagnosed diabetes Perhaps a qualification would fit better: deaths from heart disease may have been caused by undiagnosed diabetes.

lazybreather 7y ago

About 90% of the general population have "other" illnesses.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
A third of the US population suffers from high blood pressure [1]. More than 100 million U.S. adults are now living with diabetes or prediabetes [2]. About 15 million Americans have cancer of some sort [3]. About 10 million people are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed [4]. So, you're not wrong! The high risk factor cohort is enormous, and the more risk factors you have, the higher your risk of death is (based on data coming out of Italy). A lot of folks are going to die from ailments they had and knew about, or ailments they had but didn't know about. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm [2] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-report.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-repor... [3] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html [4] https://www.google.com/search?q=americans+immunocompromised https://www.google.com/search?q=americans+immunocompromised
Data_Junkie 7y ago
Point being is it is much of the danger can be attributed to being in poorer health to start with. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PATHOGEN.
guenthert 7y ago
That might be the case, but they are certainly not older than 80.

heisenbit 7y ago

Most people dying from AIDS die from other illnesses. If something new pulls the bodily systems down across the board by viral replication, dying cells and lack of oxygen there will always be a place that is a weak spot which gives.

guenthert 7y ago
With AIDS attacking the immune system, this is an patently bad example.

fenesiistvan 7y ago

Multiple reports now mention this "high blood pressure" criteria. What this means more exactly? Elevated (above 120/80) also counts as high?

exabrial 7y ago
I also saw a report showing a co-morbidity with tobacco smokers. I'll see if I can find it.
- jdhn 7y ago
  This makes sense seeing that cigarette smoke damages lungs.
beagle3 7y ago
I haven’t been able to find a good description, but I suspect it means there is a known history of high bp (which indeed is usually defined as you wrote) However, there is confounding issue of bp medicine - there was a lancer article about ibuprofen and some kinds of bp medicine causing increased ACE2 expression, which is suspected to increase susceptibility to sarscov2 and worsen covid symptoms. So, it could be that the blood pressure isn’t actually the risk factor, but treatments for it. Will take time to tell
- arpa 7y ago
  The official position of the european cardiology association is that claims that BP medicine can increase suceptibility and worsen symptoms is basically FUD: https://www.escardio.org/Councils/Council-on-Hypertension-(CHT)/News/position-statement-of-the-esc-council-on-hypertension-on-ace-inhibitors-and-ang https://www.escardio.org/Councils/Council-on-Hypertension-(C... It is strongly suggested to keep taking your BP medication. A bonus also lies in that link: there is evidence from studies in animals suggesting that these medications might be rather protective against serious lung complications in patients with COVID-19 infection, but to date there is no data in humans. The mechanism of protective action is explained by this comment on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22505537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22505537 While the theory of ACE inhibitors/blockers making covid-19 worse is basically based upon the presumption that due to inhibition/blocking of angiotensin receptors, the body upregulates by creating more ACE receptors, to which the virus can bind.

jonrimmer 7y ago

This doesn't mean that many of those who were younger and without pre-existing illnesses weren't in a serious condition and in danger of dying, just that, with the help of intensive care, they were able to survive. If and when heath services become completely overwhelmed and there are no longer enough hospital bed/ventilators/doctors and nurses to provide the assistance they need, then we'll likely see a lot of younger and otherwise healthy people start to die as well.

DeonPenny 7y ago
It's that the opposite of what they are saying. In a situation where you just described when the system in italy was very openly overwhelmed young people not only didn't die there's very little evidence they got sick, to begin with
- jpxw 7y ago
  Hope you are correct!
- Teever 7y ago
  Was this due to triage where resources were focused on younger people with complications as the medical professionals felt that it was a better use of limited resources?

stephsmithio 7y ago

I think headlines like these are extremely detrimental to the global fight of this virus. Whether or not you're at risk (age, health problems, etc), you are a vehicle for transporting the virus and so while there is no need for "panic", it's both respectful and pragmatic to distance so that the virus can be contained.

garraeth 7y ago
Why? Shouldn't the truth be known? Wouldn't it be wise to know actual stats vs/ trying to hide the truth in order to propagate undue panic? Then discuss it, and options, as how to move forward with correct information vs/ guesses and/or rumors? It's sad that this report was downvoted on a site (HN) that is supposed to be so analytical.
- cameronfraser 7y ago
  In a perfect world where everyone reacts rationally sure. However, the actual reaction to this information is that individuals deem themselves not a risk and go about their daily lives. Unfortunately they are endangering everyone who is at risk in the process.
  - ardy42 7y ago
    Yeah, there's so much complexity here that a simple number could lead someone to miss. So, 99% of those who died had another illness. Almost everyone has illnesses, so what kinds are we talking about? A patient surviving doesn't mean the patient didn't need intensive medical care. So you survived, are there any long-term symptoms you'll have to learn to live with? I've also heard that (at least in some contexts) a "mild" case of COVID-19 is defined as one that didn't need breathing assistance. That's not the colloquial definition of "mild."
- benmmurphy 7y ago
  The article raising interesting points but there is still not enough information to make an evaluation. I'm more interested in some kind of quantification of how many years of life corona virus is taking from its victims. You could imagine a hypothetical grim reaper virus that kills you a day before you would otherwise die. This virus kills absolutely everybody in the country but it is probably not worth fighting unless it is super cheap to do so.

rayvd 7y ago

Same as with influenza.