5 ms·

The spanish flu killed working age people. The case fatality rate for Italian health care workers (frequently tested so should be a good proxy for IFR) is sitti

The spanish flu killed working age people. The case fatality rate for Italian health care workers (frequently tested so should be a good proxy for IFR) is sitting around 0,35%. When you adjust for age (those under 60) you end up with <0.1%. When you look at data based on cfr, serology, etc it all paints a picture of stratified risks based on age. The best gift my age group can give is build herd immunity. Given most deaths in Canada are in long term care homes (up to 80% in Quebec), this gives us a clear target to improve.

bluejekyll 7y ago
> The best gift my age group can give is build herd immunity. Careful with that. There have been a number of deaths in younger age groups, statistically not as significant as those in older and at risk groups, but the risk is there.
- shakopeeant 7y ago
  And the media is there to tell you about every single case, which in itself should tell you something.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  Also reports of damage in nervous system, permanent lung damage, etc.
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  Statistically not as significant? Or statistically not significant?
  - bluejekyll 7y ago
    Thanks, I updated my comment to be a little more clear that it is statistically not as significant. Didn’t realize that was ambiguous at first.
- greedo 7y ago
  There's no current evidence that those who have been previously infected are immune.
  - mardifoufs 7y ago
    If that was true, vaccines would be useless and lockdowns would be futile. There is no reason to believe this virus us somehow different from every other viruswe have ever seen and magically cannot be immunized against.
    - greedo 7y ago
      There are hundreds, if not thousands of viruses we can't be immunized against. They either mutate too quickly, rendering any antibodies we develop moot, or they kill us too quickly. We don't have a great track record in developing vaccines for viruses either.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
The Spanish flu killed working age people. When it returned the following year. It mutated to become much more dangerous to younger people.
- ranDOMscripts 7y ago
  The same year. What started as a bad flu in Kansas in the Spring of 1918 morphed into a super-killer by the Fall of the same year.[0] [0]https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurge...
- nogabebop23 7y ago
  yes - the first wave appeared to use young people as a transmission vector but didn't harm them compared to the second and third waves where they were hammered as hard as the young and old.
coolvision 7y ago
It's strange that engineers are giving in to this biased and non-rational mental model, treating this situation as linear and robust. It is non-linear and non-robust system. The main problem is that mortality rate even among young people would become much higher as soon as hospitals become overwhelmed. So you can not make any predictive conclusions based on current stats. Please look at any of the numerous models available online which account for all factors, and you will see how badly herd immunity idea would end for all age groups.
- grawprog 7y ago
  >is that mortality rate even among young people would become much higher as soon as hospitals become overwhelmed. I don't see how this follows. The point the parent was making is that young people don't seem to need hospital care. Why would they suddenly start dying just because 'hospitals are overwhelmed'? They still won't need them...
  - leesec 7y ago
    Original comment is talking about deaths, there are many, many more hospitalizations.
  - kadoban 7y ago
    The ggp made no mention at all of hospitalization rates, only fatality rates.
  - williamdclt 7y ago
    Not true, the point of the parent is that young people don't seem to die. For 0.1% dying, how many are going to the hospital? Let's say it's 10% (completely random number), if you increase the population then 10% completely overcrowds the hospitals, quality of care plummets and 0.1% becomes 5% (once again, completely random number). Not taking any position nor bringing data in this debate, just pointing out the logic
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > The point the parent was making is that young people don't seem to need hospital care. Low risk doesn't mean no risk, and we see plenty of younger people in hospital, and in intensive care, because of covid-19. ICNARC has a report that they update over time using data from UK intensive care units. https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/c5a62b13-6486-ea11-9125-00505601089b https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/c5a... Age at admission (years), number of people discharged alive (%), number of people died (%) 16-39 240 (78.4) 66 (21.6) 40-49 350 (73.2) 128 (26.8) 50-59 568 (57.0) 429 (43.0) 60-69 503 (41.8) 701 (58.2) 70-79 293 (32.2) 617 (67.8) 80+ 57 (31.3) 125 (68.7) Once admitted to ICU people aged 16-39 have a 21.6% chance of dying vs a 78.4% chance of being discharged alive.

bluejekyll 7y ago

> The best gift my age group can give is build herd immunity. Careful with that. There have been a number of deaths in younger age groups, statistically not as significant as those in older and at risk groups, but the risk is there.

shakopeeant 7y ago
And the media is there to tell you about every single case, which in itself should tell you something.
TomMarius 7y ago
Also reports of damage in nervous system, permanent lung damage, etc.
tinus_hn 7y ago
Statistically not as significant? Or statistically not significant?
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  Thanks, I updated my comment to be a little more clear that it is statistically not as significant. Didn’t realize that was ambiguous at first.
greedo 7y ago
There's no current evidence that those who have been previously infected are immune.
- mardifoufs 7y ago
  If that was true, vaccines would be useless and lockdowns would be futile. There is no reason to believe this virus us somehow different from every other viruswe have ever seen and magically cannot be immunized against.
  - greedo 7y ago
    There are hundreds, if not thousands of viruses we can't be immunized against. They either mutate too quickly, rendering any antibodies we develop moot, or they kill us too quickly. We don't have a great track record in developing vaccines for viruses either.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

The Spanish flu killed working age people. When it returned the following year. It mutated to become much more dangerous to younger people.

ranDOMscripts 7y ago
The same year. What started as a bad flu in Kansas in the Spring of 1918 morphed into a super-killer by the Fall of the same year.[0] [0]https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurge...
nogabebop23 7y ago
yes - the first wave appeared to use young people as a transmission vector but didn't harm them compared to the second and third waves where they were hammered as hard as the young and old.

coolvision 7y ago

It's strange that engineers are giving in to this biased and non-rational mental model, treating this situation as linear and robust. It is non-linear and non-robust system. The main problem is that mortality rate even among young people would become much higher as soon as hospitals become overwhelmed. So you can not make any predictive conclusions based on current stats. Please look at any of the numerous models available online which account for all factors, and you will see how badly herd immunity idea would end for all age groups.

grawprog 7y ago
>is that mortality rate even among young people would become much higher as soon as hospitals become overwhelmed. I don't see how this follows. The point the parent was making is that young people don't seem to need hospital care. Why would they suddenly start dying just because 'hospitals are overwhelmed'? They still won't need them...
- leesec 7y ago
  Original comment is talking about deaths, there are many, many more hospitalizations.
- kadoban 7y ago
  The ggp made no mention at all of hospitalization rates, only fatality rates.
- williamdclt 7y ago
  Not true, the point of the parent is that young people don't seem to die. For 0.1% dying, how many are going to the hospital? Let's say it's 10% (completely random number), if you increase the population then 10% completely overcrowds the hospitals, quality of care plummets and 0.1% becomes 5% (once again, completely random number). Not taking any position nor bringing data in this debate, just pointing out the logic
- DanBC 7y ago
  > The point the parent was making is that young people don't seem to need hospital care. Low risk doesn't mean no risk, and we see plenty of younger people in hospital, and in intensive care, because of covid-19. ICNARC has a report that they update over time using data from UK intensive care units. https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/c5a62b13-6486-ea11-9125-00505601089b https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/c5a... Age at admission (years), number of people discharged alive (%), number of people died (%) 16-39 240 (78.4) 66 (21.6) 40-49 350 (73.2) 128 (26.8) 50-59 568 (57.0) 429 (43.0) 60-69 503 (41.8) 701 (58.2) 70-79 293 (32.2) 617 (67.8) 80+ 57 (31.3) 125 (68.7) Once admitted to ICU people aged 16-39 have a 21.6% chance of dying vs a 78.4% chance of being discharged alive.