7 ms·

this is a really good point. AFAIK, 100% of the canonical pre-existing conditions which are highly dangerous with COVID are disqualifiers for joining the milita

this is a really good point. AFAIK, 100% of the canonical pre-existing conditions which are highly dangerous with COVID are disqualifiers for joining the military. this cohort will give us a much better picture of how the virus impacts a totally healthy and young population. as with countless other pieces of evidence, it should also help to put the "it's just a flu bro" falsehood to bed.

jjtheblunt 6y ago
Does the mortality rate across entire population (not particular subpopulations) exceed that of the flu?
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  Almost certainly. The US had 27k deaths in the past two weeks. That's more than some entire years of flu related deaths. Give it another few weeks and it will be more than any recent year.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Yes. Current understanding of the mortality rate is that it’s roughly 10x more lethal than the flu across all age demographics. This means you might only have a 0.2% of dying as a 20 year old, but you only had a 0.02% chance of dying of the flu. The caveat is that mortality rate is intimately tied with the availability of certain types of care; if you need a vent and the hospital is full, you die even if otherwise you would’ve lived. Thus case mortality rate will change dramatically once the hospitals fill up.
  - usaar333 6y ago
    I don't think that's true. covid has stronger age dependence. Just look at the ratio of covid vs. influenza deaths on the CDC's website (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm). 3:1 covid:flu for over 85, but 1:1 for 25-35 and 1:10 for children. (relative ratios as we don't know total covid infections). This is especially striking with children: if the US had the same number of covid infections as seasonal flu, you'd probably have lower pediatric deaths from covid than flu.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      These statistics don’t support that conclusion, because these statistics are for total deaths. You can’t meaningfully compare the total deaths from a disease that’s done for the season (Flu) with one that’s still on going (COVID-19). What you should be comparing is case fatality rates.
      - usaar333 6y ago
        But can you not compare the ratios between age groups? That's all I'm doing here - showing deaths have a higher age correlation with covid than flu. - not making any statement about absolute CFR/IFR.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        No, because you don’t know what the infection rate is by each demographic. You have to compare just the case fatality rate. Comparing fatality ratios alone is too likely to measure unrelated factors.
        gpm 6y ago
        It's more likely that cases/infections is skewed by age, because we test severe cases more than mild cases, than infections as a whole is skewed by age. Assuming infections are uniformly distributed, or rather have a similar distribution to the flu, seems entirely reasonable until we have good data suggesting otherwise.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        There is no reason to believe that infections aren’t skewed by age. We took a wide range of preventative measures that are completely unique within living memory, such as closing down most schools and colleges. Until we’ve actually done statistical analysis on who got sick, any predictions based on historical trends are largely invalid.
perl4ever 6y ago
"AFAIK, 100% of the canonical pre-existing conditions which are highly dangerous with COVID are disqualifiers for joining the military." Including being "old".
- lostlogin 6y ago
  Disqualified from signing up, but you can age surely? I thought that smokers had elevated risks too, are smokers allowed in the military? As far as I can tell they are.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    On average, people who start out older tend to end up older, after a given period of time. That's my theory, at least.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > Disqualified from signing up, but you can age surely? To an extent. The US military caps military service at 30 years (20 for reserve officers), last I checked. So if you enlisted at 35 (right at the cutoff for the usual maximum age to enlist), you'd be forced to retire at 65, whereas if you enlisted at 17, you'd be forced to retire at 47. 65 (IIRC) is right on the edge of when age starts becoming a significant risk factor; for the vast majority of military personnel, it ain't gonna be a factor. There are of course exceptions to this based on rank or specialization; for example, had my grandpa been promoted to General, he would've been able to serve longer, but he wasn't selected for the promotion so he aged out as a Colonel (or at least that's how he explained it to me).
  - jki275 6y ago
    Majority on the ship are going to be under 40. Most people start their military careers between 18 and 22, and most people leave at it before 20 years of service. Squadron commanders, senior medical officer, Dept heads and the CO and Admiral would most likely be in their forties or early fifties.

jjtheblunt 6y ago

Does the mortality rate across entire population (not particular subpopulations) exceed that of the flu?

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
Almost certainly. The US had 27k deaths in the past two weeks. That's more than some entire years of flu related deaths. Give it another few weeks and it will be more than any recent year.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Yes. Current understanding of the mortality rate is that it’s roughly 10x more lethal than the flu across all age demographics. This means you might only have a 0.2% of dying as a 20 year old, but you only had a 0.02% chance of dying of the flu. The caveat is that mortality rate is intimately tied with the availability of certain types of care; if you need a vent and the hospital is full, you die even if otherwise you would’ve lived. Thus case mortality rate will change dramatically once the hospitals fill up.
- usaar333 6y ago
  I don't think that's true. covid has stronger age dependence. Just look at the ratio of covid vs. influenza deaths on the CDC's website (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm). 3:1 covid:flu for over 85, but 1:1 for 25-35 and 1:10 for children. (relative ratios as we don't know total covid infections). This is especially striking with children: if the US had the same number of covid infections as seasonal flu, you'd probably have lower pediatric deaths from covid than flu.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    These statistics don’t support that conclusion, because these statistics are for total deaths. You can’t meaningfully compare the total deaths from a disease that’s done for the season (Flu) with one that’s still on going (COVID-19). What you should be comparing is case fatality rates.
    - usaar333 6y ago
      But can you not compare the ratios between age groups? That's all I'm doing here - showing deaths have a higher age correlation with covid than flu. - not making any statement about absolute CFR/IFR.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        No, because you don’t know what the infection rate is by each demographic. You have to compare just the case fatality rate. Comparing fatality ratios alone is too likely to measure unrelated factors.
        gpm 6y ago
        It's more likely that cases/infections is skewed by age, because we test severe cases more than mild cases, than infections as a whole is skewed by age. Assuming infections are uniformly distributed, or rather have a similar distribution to the flu, seems entirely reasonable until we have good data suggesting otherwise.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        There is no reason to believe that infections aren’t skewed by age. We took a wide range of preventative measures that are completely unique within living memory, such as closing down most schools and colleges. Until we’ve actually done statistical analysis on who got sick, any predictions based on historical trends are largely invalid.

perl4ever 6y ago

"AFAIK, 100% of the canonical pre-existing conditions which are highly dangerous with COVID are disqualifiers for joining the military." Including being "old".

lostlogin 6y ago
Disqualified from signing up, but you can age surely? I thought that smokers had elevated risks too, are smokers allowed in the military? As far as I can tell they are.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  On average, people who start out older tend to end up older, after a given period of time. That's my theory, at least.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > Disqualified from signing up, but you can age surely? To an extent. The US military caps military service at 30 years (20 for reserve officers), last I checked. So if you enlisted at 35 (right at the cutoff for the usual maximum age to enlist), you'd be forced to retire at 65, whereas if you enlisted at 17, you'd be forced to retire at 47. 65 (IIRC) is right on the edge of when age starts becoming a significant risk factor; for the vast majority of military personnel, it ain't gonna be a factor. There are of course exceptions to this based on rank or specialization; for example, had my grandpa been promoted to General, he would've been able to serve longer, but he wasn't selected for the promotion so he aged out as a Colonel (or at least that's how he explained it to me).
- jki275 6y ago
  Majority on the ship are going to be under 40. Most people start their military careers between 18 and 22, and most people leave at it before 20 years of service. Squadron commanders, senior medical officer, Dept heads and the CO and Admiral would most likely be in their forties or early fifties.