4 ms·

I haven't seen any young and HEALTHY folks needing ICU care. Can you share any cases? Or any stats indicating this is the case?

T-A 7y ago
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-new-age-analysis-of-risk-confirms-young-adults-not-invincible/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-new-age-anal... And of course the case everybody should know about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang
- rafiki6 7y ago
  I read that statnews article. Nothing in there actually indicates that young and HEALTHY people are at a high risk. What it does say is that 2-4% of the 20-44 age group needed ICU treatment. No indication is made to the risk profile or previous issues that group has. That being said there is a 0.1-0.2% risk for people within the age range of 20-44. The example of the hero doctor frankly stands out as an outlier. We aren't actually sure he was healthy, and even if we were, what we know is he was exposed to a high viral load very rapidly. Beyond that he was under tremendous stress from being a front line worker, meaning he might have been exposed to multiple infections and under stress from an authoritarian government trying to silence him with questionable means. Stress has a very real effect on our immune systems that has been empirically shown to make it very challenging for the body to recover from infections. I want us to be incredibly careful about how we share information and our interpretations of it. I have yet to see anything that clearly indicates that young people age 20-44 are at a high risk if they are HEALTHY. Healthy here means not currently battling any other severe infections, and in a general state of good health. The percentage within this demographic is clearly stated as 0.1-0.2% and this includes immunocomprised people. Please help spread accurate information, as this panic is getting absurd. I was at a grocery store today and people were fighting for supplies that there is not actual shortage of, and being generally rude to each other. People are losing their livelihoods and our economy is crashing. A recent bloomberg article is stating that we should expect a 30% unemployment rate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-22/fed-s-bullard-says-u-s-jobless-rate-may-soar-to-30-in-2q https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-22/fed-s-bul... This would be a devastating outcome which will be substantially worse than this virus has been, especially in a country like the USA with no universal health care and no clear indication that will ever happen. Have you ever tried being poor in the US? It's not fun or easy. Unfortunately our leadership is not equipped to handle this correctly. Corrupt congresspeople are profiting off of this. The sitting president is showing signs of mental instability. The alternative probably isn't much better. Beyond that, sentiment on social media now seems to have people favoring authoritarian measures enacted to force people to stay home. This virus is serious, but our reaction to it is much more serious. We cannot sustain this type of quarantine for the long run. We may end up finding ourselves under authoritarian rule that won't disappear anytime soon. The only solutions we have are that we accept this virus as a real part of life, we attempt herd immunity through a more targeted type of quarantine, or we wait for the miracle of a vaccine to be developed. Referring back to the statnews article, they come to a similar conclusion and say that the demographics of a country should dictate the measures taken to prevent the most at risk populations from contracting this virus.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    On top of what you said there is also the naked assertion that this virus is in “exponential growth phase” when the truth is we aren’t testing the right population to prove or disprove it. And before you downvote this comment... consider all the “exponential growth” you see on those stat counters could correlate to number of tests administered.
  - T-A 7y ago
    > I read that statnews article. Nothing in there actually indicates that young and HEALTHY people are at a high risk. That's not what I responded to. This is: > I haven't seen any young and HEALTHY folks needing ICU care. The linked articles says "up to one-fifth of infected people ages 20-44 have been hospitalized, including 2%-4% who required treatment in an intensive care unit." Unless you wish to claim that 1/5 people ages 20-44 are not HEALTHY (your capitalization, maybe there is some intended meaning I'm missing there), you have now seen what you were asking for. > That being said there is a 0.1-0.2% risk for people within the age range of 20-44. Let's go with the lower number, 0.1%, and see what that implies. In 2018, there were about 109 million people aged 20 to 44 in the US [1]; 0.1% of that is 109000, more than all ICU beds in the US [2]. And that's just counting those who would die if given intensive care. If we go with 2% of the same age group needing ICU treatment (again, the lower end of the quoted range, 2-4%), that's 2.2 million people. With only 100000 ICU beds available, that means 2.1 million people aged 20-44 die, even if we deny everybody else intensive care. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the... [2] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/18/coronavirus-ventilators-us-hospitals-johns-hopkins-mayo-clinic/5032523002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/18/coronav...

T-A 7y ago

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-new-age-analysis-of-risk-confirms-young-adults-not-invincible/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-new-age-anal... And of course the case everybody should know about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang

rafiki6 7y ago
I read that statnews article. Nothing in there actually indicates that young and HEALTHY people are at a high risk. What it does say is that 2-4% of the 20-44 age group needed ICU treatment. No indication is made to the risk profile or previous issues that group has. That being said there is a 0.1-0.2% risk for people within the age range of 20-44. The example of the hero doctor frankly stands out as an outlier. We aren't actually sure he was healthy, and even if we were, what we know is he was exposed to a high viral load very rapidly. Beyond that he was under tremendous stress from being a front line worker, meaning he might have been exposed to multiple infections and under stress from an authoritarian government trying to silence him with questionable means. Stress has a very real effect on our immune systems that has been empirically shown to make it very challenging for the body to recover from infections. I want us to be incredibly careful about how we share information and our interpretations of it. I have yet to see anything that clearly indicates that young people age 20-44 are at a high risk if they are HEALTHY. Healthy here means not currently battling any other severe infections, and in a general state of good health. The percentage within this demographic is clearly stated as 0.1-0.2% and this includes immunocomprised people. Please help spread accurate information, as this panic is getting absurd. I was at a grocery store today and people were fighting for supplies that there is not actual shortage of, and being generally rude to each other. People are losing their livelihoods and our economy is crashing. A recent bloomberg article is stating that we should expect a 30% unemployment rate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-22/fed-s-bullard-says-u-s-jobless-rate-may-soar-to-30-in-2q https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-22/fed-s-bul... This would be a devastating outcome which will be substantially worse than this virus has been, especially in a country like the USA with no universal health care and no clear indication that will ever happen. Have you ever tried being poor in the US? It's not fun or easy. Unfortunately our leadership is not equipped to handle this correctly. Corrupt congresspeople are profiting off of this. The sitting president is showing signs of mental instability. The alternative probably isn't much better. Beyond that, sentiment on social media now seems to have people favoring authoritarian measures enacted to force people to stay home. This virus is serious, but our reaction to it is much more serious. We cannot sustain this type of quarantine for the long run. We may end up finding ourselves under authoritarian rule that won't disappear anytime soon. The only solutions we have are that we accept this virus as a real part of life, we attempt herd immunity through a more targeted type of quarantine, or we wait for the miracle of a vaccine to be developed. Referring back to the statnews article, they come to a similar conclusion and say that the demographics of a country should dictate the measures taken to prevent the most at risk populations from contracting this virus.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  On top of what you said there is also the naked assertion that this virus is in “exponential growth phase” when the truth is we aren’t testing the right population to prove or disprove it. And before you downvote this comment... consider all the “exponential growth” you see on those stat counters could correlate to number of tests administered.
- T-A 7y ago
  > I read that statnews article. Nothing in there actually indicates that young and HEALTHY people are at a high risk. That's not what I responded to. This is: > I haven't seen any young and HEALTHY folks needing ICU care. The linked articles says "up to one-fifth of infected people ages 20-44 have been hospitalized, including 2%-4% who required treatment in an intensive care unit." Unless you wish to claim that 1/5 people ages 20-44 are not HEALTHY (your capitalization, maybe there is some intended meaning I'm missing there), you have now seen what you were asking for. > That being said there is a 0.1-0.2% risk for people within the age range of 20-44. Let's go with the lower number, 0.1%, and see what that implies. In 2018, there were about 109 million people aged 20 to 44 in the US [1]; 0.1% of that is 109000, more than all ICU beds in the US [2]. And that's just counting those who would die if given intensive care. If we go with 2% of the same age group needing ICU treatment (again, the lower end of the quoted range, 2-4%), that's 2.2 million people. With only 100000 ICU beds available, that means 2.1 million people aged 20-44 die, even if we deny everybody else intensive care. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the... [2] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/18/coronavirus-ventilators-us-hospitals-johns-hopkins-mayo-clinic/5032523002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/18/coronav...