3 ms·

In San Diego people under 30 are close to 20% of total confirmed and over 5% of hospitalized cases. About 7% of confirmed are hospitalized for this age group. O

In San Diego people under 30 are close to 20% of total confirmed and over 5% of hospitalized cases. About 7% of confirmed are hospitalized for this age group. Our positive test ratio is under 7%. Tests are constrained by policy but not dramatically so. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/community_epidemiology/dc/2019-nCoV/status.html https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs... Another data point is the US military. I believe they test much more widely due to their living conditions. So far the cfr is about 0.4%.

mlyle 6y ago
> In San Diego people under 30 are close to 20% of total confirmed and over 5% of hospitalized cases. People under 30 are over half the population in San Diego, so you've just said there's 1/10th as many of them in the hospital as we'd expect if the total risk were equal. The serology data tells us that an even greater portion of cases in the young are missed-- they are probably actually half the number of infections in San Diego, but a much smaller proportion of hospitalized cases. The current data implies something close to what he said: about a 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000 chance of hospitalization for people under age 35.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
Young people interact with more individuals, and engage in more behavior that exchanges microbes such as unprotected sex, protected sex, sharing pipes/vapes, sharing utensils, etc. We should expect that the proportion of people with Covid should be heavily biased towards the young for that reason, as it is for any disease that does not have a biased transmission. Most indications I've seen is that the young are not harmed much by covid, but can still get infected just as easily, thus why we see: "X% of hospitalizations are young people" as opposed to the statement that people actually interpret it as: "X% of young people infected with covid are hospitalized". Does that make sense?
- fspeech 6y ago
  For any test that is not given randomly or universally, there is a selection bias. A test given based on severity of symptoms bias heavily against patients with light symptoms, presumably younger people. But to get from 7% (hospitalized to confirmed) to 1 in 500 is a factor of 35. BTW the city of Canton (Guangzhou) just tested all their high school seniors in preparation for school reopenning and found zero positive case so far. And they did find cases among other groups. I don't think anyone enjoys lockdown. At a minimum we need sufficient testing, sufficient ppes, sufficient surge capacity and training for standard supportive care. We are still quite a ways from that. Even if death is unavoidable people deserve to have reasonably good care.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > But to get from 7% (hospitalized to confirmed) to 1 in 500 is a factor of 35. This is broadly in the range implied by a number of measures across the entire population. 20x for randomized population sampling (Iceland), 20-80x from serology studies, etc. In this analysis, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070821v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070821v... 35x is actually the exact factor that cases are estimated to be under-reported by in California. :P > I don't think anyone enjoys lockdown. At a minimum we need sufficient testing, sufficient ppes, sufficient surge capacity and training for standard supportive care. Here in the SF Bay Area, ICU usage peaked 3 weeks ago, and controls have been tightening. We're well below seasonal norms for ICU usage at this point. Surely the original controls that caused the original trend down in disease would be good enough now, and could even be loosened slightly further to have more parity with other jurisdictions that are successful.

mlyle 6y ago

> In San Diego people under 30 are close to 20% of total confirmed and over 5% of hospitalized cases. People under 30 are over half the population in San Diego, so you've just said there's 1/10th as many of them in the hospital as we'd expect if the total risk were equal. The serology data tells us that an even greater portion of cases in the young are missed-- they are probably actually half the number of infections in San Diego, but a much smaller proportion of hospitalized cases. The current data implies something close to what he said: about a 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000 chance of hospitalization for people under age 35.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

Young people interact with more individuals, and engage in more behavior that exchanges microbes such as unprotected sex, protected sex, sharing pipes/vapes, sharing utensils, etc. We should expect that the proportion of people with Covid should be heavily biased towards the young for that reason, as it is for any disease that does not have a biased transmission. Most indications I've seen is that the young are not harmed much by covid, but can still get infected just as easily, thus why we see: "X% of hospitalizations are young people" as opposed to the statement that people actually interpret it as: "X% of young people infected with covid are hospitalized". Does that make sense?

fspeech 6y ago
For any test that is not given randomly or universally, there is a selection bias. A test given based on severity of symptoms bias heavily against patients with light symptoms, presumably younger people. But to get from 7% (hospitalized to confirmed) to 1 in 500 is a factor of 35. BTW the city of Canton (Guangzhou) just tested all their high school seniors in preparation for school reopenning and found zero positive case so far. And they did find cases among other groups. I don't think anyone enjoys lockdown. At a minimum we need sufficient testing, sufficient ppes, sufficient surge capacity and training for standard supportive care. We are still quite a ways from that. Even if death is unavoidable people deserve to have reasonably good care.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > But to get from 7% (hospitalized to confirmed) to 1 in 500 is a factor of 35. This is broadly in the range implied by a number of measures across the entire population. 20x for randomized population sampling (Iceland), 20-80x from serology studies, etc. In this analysis, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070821v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070821v... 35x is actually the exact factor that cases are estimated to be under-reported by in California. :P > I don't think anyone enjoys lockdown. At a minimum we need sufficient testing, sufficient ppes, sufficient surge capacity and training for standard supportive care. Here in the SF Bay Area, ICU usage peaked 3 weeks ago, and controls have been tightening. We're well below seasonal norms for ICU usage at this point. Surely the original controls that caused the original trend down in disease would be good enough now, and could even be loosened slightly further to have more parity with other jurisdictions that are successful.