3 ms·

According to this admittedly outdated CDC page[1], the 85+ age group makes up 30% of COVID-19 deaths. Even if you are right about that group (which I think is

by slg 7y ago

According to this admittedly outdated CDC page[1], the 85+ age group makes up 30% of COVID-19 deaths. Even if you are right about that group (which I think is feasible but unlikely), there is still a huge population of people who are dying who were not previously close to dying. [1] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

arcticbull 7y ago
That's not an entirely fair way to slice, since only 6% of deaths in any age group are folks without comorbidities. I'll dig up the reference, pretty sure it was NYC data. We'll have to wait for the dust to settle but I'm pretty sure we're looking at an upper bound worst-case of basically everything we've measured re COVID.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I'm at a loss for why anyone should care about the fact that younger people dying have "comorbidities". If asthma or hypertension have suddenly become a death sentence, that is a very big deal; virtually every American has families with one of the "qualifying" C19 comorbidities.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    It's not a death sentence by any stretch, you're substantially overreacting. CDC data puts the US flu fatality rate at 0.1% (up to 20-60,000 deaths for 45,000,000 annual infections ~= 0.1%) and serology studies are putting COVID at around 0.3% -- not adjusting for comorbidities. So it's worse than the flu overall, but massively skewed older so for young and especially young and healthy people it's not materially different than the flu. For kids, its better than the flu -- which kills both the young and the old. And yeah, the flu kills seemingly young and healthy people, too, we just don't really talk about it. For old folks, it's much worse. We need to keep them safe, but that doesn't mean we need to freak out about children catching it when they're gonna be just fine. [1] Remember 99.2% of the folks who died in Italy averaged 80.5 years old with an average of 3 comorbidities. Zero health professionals under the age of 49 died in Italy despite constant and repeated exposure. [2] Not everyone is equally affected by COVID and for the overwhelming majority (99.7% of all people), it's by no means a death sentence. I strongly suggest you read [2] for perspective. I know all the breathless screaming on television has colored your perspective on all this, and yeah, it's not great. However, allow data to be your guide. We're gonna be just fine. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/consensus-is-emerging-that-children-are-less-vulnerable-to-coronavirus-11587988688 https://www.wsj.com/articles/consensus-is-emerging-that-chil... [2] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-...
    - slg 7y ago
      It is weird how you are insistent on focusing in on how comorbidities impact COVID patients but ignore the same comorbidity issues for flu patients. Also not all comorbidities are created equal. I can understand the original argument if everyone dying of COVID-19 had stage 4 lung cancer, but there are people dying with chronic conditions like asthma that traditionally have little impact on life expectancy. Also the 0.3% number you are referencing is being questioned as other serology studies have shown it to be 2x-3x higher. The reality of the situation is that we don't know the exact fatality rate of COVID-19. What we do know is that it is at least a few times more deadly than the flu and potentially an order of magnitude more deadly. We also know that the coronavirus is much more infectious than the flu. Like previously mentioned, we have already passed the worst flu numbers even while most of us are under a stay at home order. It seems like no matter how you look at the data, the only way in which COVID-19 is not worse than the flu is how it impact the very young. COVID is more deadly in basically every other way. I honestly don't see what people gain from continuing to downplay this disease in relation to the flu.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        > It is weird how you are insistent on focusing in on how comorbidities impact COVID patients but ignore the same comorbidity issues for flu patients. That's fair, although age matters way, way more, so we can elide the bit for future re-readings. > Also the 0.3% number you are referencing is being questioned as other serology studies have shown it to be 2x-3x higher. The reality of the situation is that we don't know the exact fatality rate of COVID-19. What we do know is that it is at least a few times more deadly than the flu and potentially an order of magnitude more deadly. I'm not just referencing the Gangelt data, but also the Vo data, and the Santa Clara data (which is very much in question now). That was also approximately the IFR for the Diamond Princess (0.85%) but of course Diamond Princess skewed much older so likely that IFR represents an upper bound. There are precious few population studies for us to reference, but they're far more valuable for making public health decisions than the ratio of people who go into a hospital as compared to come out. That only defines the numerator, without defining the denominator. I'm also basing it on the estimates during the pandemic that H1N1 had a CFR of 0.1-5.1% from country to country, and landed on an IFR of 0.02%, or one-fifth the lowest estimate. [1] > What we do know is that it is at least a few times more deadly than the flu and potentially an order of magnitude more deadly. Not for all demographics. It's demonstrably less fatal for children, which the flu does not spare, and approximately the same for folks under 49. > Like previously mentioned, we have already passed the worst flu numbers even while most of us are under a stay at home order. It seems like no matter how you look at the data, the only way in which COVID-19 is not worse than the flu is how it impact the very young. COVID is more deadly in basically every other way. There's reasons you shouldn't compare COVID's current numbers to an average flu season. One being that COVID's new so none of us have immunity. It's also more virulent. It's affecting a similar size population but just all at once instead of spread out, so it's impact is concentrated in time. That makes it not particularly meaningful to project out. Not to mention that flu number is after a vaccine and after a lifetime of exposures, so likely doesn't represent an apples to apples comparison. If the flu vaccine is 10-60% effective, you should probably multiply the number of expected flu cases by up to 2 - or more. Think of it more like the first time someone caught the flu. Further, the flu changes regularly, and comes back at us repeatedly, and COVID may well not -- early indications are promising in that regard. I'm not trying to downplay anything, I'm trying to synthesize the data we do know and not fall into the panic that is dominating the discourse. We shouldn't make big decisions while scared senseless, we should allow the data to dictate as much as possible. Saying this disease is a "death sentence" for an asthmatic 20 year old is panic. It's just not that. 17% of hospitalizations involved asthmatics in the month of March [2] while 8% of the US population has asthma. So I guess your risk is doubled. From 0.3% to 0.6% without adjusting for age. That is not a death sentence. [1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm#T1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm#T1_down

by slg 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago

That's not an entirely fair way to slice, since only 6% of deaths in any age group are folks without comorbidities. I'll dig up the reference, pretty sure it was NYC data. We'll have to wait for the dust to settle but I'm pretty sure we're looking at an upper bound worst-case of basically everything we've measured re COVID.

tptacek 7y ago
I'm at a loss for why anyone should care about the fact that younger people dying have "comorbidities". If asthma or hypertension have suddenly become a death sentence, that is a very big deal; virtually every American has families with one of the "qualifying" C19 comorbidities.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  It's not a death sentence by any stretch, you're substantially overreacting. CDC data puts the US flu fatality rate at 0.1% (up to 20-60,000 deaths for 45,000,000 annual infections ~= 0.1%) and serology studies are putting COVID at around 0.3% -- not adjusting for comorbidities. So it's worse than the flu overall, but massively skewed older so for young and especially young and healthy people it's not materially different than the flu. For kids, its better than the flu -- which kills both the young and the old. And yeah, the flu kills seemingly young and healthy people, too, we just don't really talk about it. For old folks, it's much worse. We need to keep them safe, but that doesn't mean we need to freak out about children catching it when they're gonna be just fine. [1] Remember 99.2% of the folks who died in Italy averaged 80.5 years old with an average of 3 comorbidities. Zero health professionals under the age of 49 died in Italy despite constant and repeated exposure. [2] Not everyone is equally affected by COVID and for the overwhelming majority (99.7% of all people), it's by no means a death sentence. I strongly suggest you read [2] for perspective. I know all the breathless screaming on television has colored your perspective on all this, and yeah, it's not great. However, allow data to be your guide. We're gonna be just fine. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/consensus-is-emerging-that-children-are-less-vulnerable-to-coronavirus-11587988688 https://www.wsj.com/articles/consensus-is-emerging-that-chil... [2] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-...
  - slg 7y ago
    It is weird how you are insistent on focusing in on how comorbidities impact COVID patients but ignore the same comorbidity issues for flu patients. Also not all comorbidities are created equal. I can understand the original argument if everyone dying of COVID-19 had stage 4 lung cancer, but there are people dying with chronic conditions like asthma that traditionally have little impact on life expectancy. Also the 0.3% number you are referencing is being questioned as other serology studies have shown it to be 2x-3x higher. The reality of the situation is that we don't know the exact fatality rate of COVID-19. What we do know is that it is at least a few times more deadly than the flu and potentially an order of magnitude more deadly. We also know that the coronavirus is much more infectious than the flu. Like previously mentioned, we have already passed the worst flu numbers even while most of us are under a stay at home order. It seems like no matter how you look at the data, the only way in which COVID-19 is not worse than the flu is how it impact the very young. COVID is more deadly in basically every other way. I honestly don't see what people gain from continuing to downplay this disease in relation to the flu.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      > It is weird how you are insistent on focusing in on how comorbidities impact COVID patients but ignore the same comorbidity issues for flu patients. That's fair, although age matters way, way more, so we can elide the bit for future re-readings. > Also the 0.3% number you are referencing is being questioned as other serology studies have shown it to be 2x-3x higher. The reality of the situation is that we don't know the exact fatality rate of COVID-19. What we do know is that it is at least a few times more deadly than the flu and potentially an order of magnitude more deadly. I'm not just referencing the Gangelt data, but also the Vo data, and the Santa Clara data (which is very much in question now). That was also approximately the IFR for the Diamond Princess (0.85%) but of course Diamond Princess skewed much older so likely that IFR represents an upper bound. There are precious few population studies for us to reference, but they're far more valuable for making public health decisions than the ratio of people who go into a hospital as compared to come out. That only defines the numerator, without defining the denominator. I'm also basing it on the estimates during the pandemic that H1N1 had a CFR of 0.1-5.1% from country to country, and landed on an IFR of 0.02%, or one-fifth the lowest estimate. [1] > What we do know is that it is at least a few times more deadly than the flu and potentially an order of magnitude more deadly. Not for all demographics. It's demonstrably less fatal for children, which the flu does not spare, and approximately the same for folks under 49. > Like previously mentioned, we have already passed the worst flu numbers even while most of us are under a stay at home order. It seems like no matter how you look at the data, the only way in which COVID-19 is not worse than the flu is how it impact the very young. COVID is more deadly in basically every other way. There's reasons you shouldn't compare COVID's current numbers to an average flu season. One being that COVID's new so none of us have immunity. It's also more virulent. It's affecting a similar size population but just all at once instead of spread out, so it's impact is concentrated in time. That makes it not particularly meaningful to project out. Not to mention that flu number is after a vaccine and after a lifetime of exposures, so likely doesn't represent an apples to apples comparison. If the flu vaccine is 10-60% effective, you should probably multiply the number of expected flu cases by up to 2 - or more. Think of it more like the first time someone caught the flu. Further, the flu changes regularly, and comes back at us repeatedly, and COVID may well not -- early indications are promising in that regard. I'm not trying to downplay anything, I'm trying to synthesize the data we do know and not fall into the panic that is dominating the discourse. We shouldn't make big decisions while scared senseless, we should allow the data to dictate as much as possible. Saying this disease is a "death sentence" for an asthmatic 20 year old is panic. It's just not that. 17% of hospitalizations involved asthmatics in the month of March [2] while 8% of the US population has asthma. So I guess your risk is doubled. From 0.3% to 0.6% without adjusting for age. That is not a death sentence. [1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm#T1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm#T1_down