5 ms·

These articles can certainly be scary. It might be good to keep the risks in mind too. “for people 49 and under, the agency [CDC] estimated that 0.05% of sympt

These articles can certainly be scary. It might be good to keep the risks in mind too. “for people 49 and under, the agency [CDC] estimated that 0.05% of symptomatic people will die.” https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estima...

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> for people 49 and under It’s always easy to downplay the risks if you start excluding the most vulnerable.
- glofish 6y ago
  vice versa, it is just as easy to exaggerate the risks if you report and extrapolate from the subset of the worst cases,
droopyEyelids 6y ago
That would be comforting if the outcomes were limited to 'death' or 'full recovery'!
- mrfusion 6y ago
  Do you have a source on the amount of other outcomes for the 0-49 group? I haven’t come across that data. I’d be curious.
  - rogerkirkness 6y ago
    ARDS is limited at this point almost exclusively to those over 75 with critical cases who happen to recover.
    - spaced-out 6y ago
      source?
    - hanklazard 6y ago
      I have not seen those numbers but regardless, ARDS is not the only morbidity we need to worry about. What if, of the 10% of hospitalized cases, half of those patients permanently lose a noticeable portion of their lung function? Not supplemental oxygen dependent but can’t walk as far or exercise the same way they could before. That’s a major life change for a huge number of people, when you extrapolate it out to the entire world. The threat of minor but permanent disability should not be ignored, especially in those who spent weeks on a vent.
  - spaced-out 6y ago
    That's what still has me worried about this virus. What percent of people under 49 survive, but don't fully recover? When this disease started I thought I'd rather just get it and get it over with, but now I'd rather avoid taking a risk I don't have to.
- nkkollaw 6y ago
  From what I got, lung damage was actually caused by unnecessary ventilators. We now know that the vast majority of people are out of oxygen because of their blood and not lungs. This is an extremely mild disease, I would assume that in a few months we'll know enough to make it a minor inconvenience for most people (more than it already is, since most people don't even experience symptoms today). What long-term damage you know of (not saying there isn't, just curious)?
  - robbiep 6y ago
    Prolonged ventilation is damaging to the lungs. But ventilation is not given lightly - usually it is for an acute deterioration and is life saving (ie without it, patient would have died in that instance). Interestingly in COVID it appears that positioning and CPAP/BIPAP can be more effective that venting in edge cases. This is a very new phenomenon in medicine, and we probably over vented in the early course of the pandemic. We were acting in what we knew of other severe respiratory diseases, and the case data from COVID hadn’t had enough time to present best treatment modalities. However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous
    - nicc 6y ago
      > However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous I was talking about permanent damage. I actually read my comment again, and that isn't really clear. Doctors in Italy are saying that ventilators were thought to be useful because people complained that they couldn't breath, but now they're saying that it's not the lungs that aren't working, but it's oxygen that is not carried out in the blood, and that ventilators can actually cause permanent damage in many cases. I'm not a doctor, so I just base everything on what the (supposed?) experts are saying. As far as I know they might very well say that on TV because there aren't enough ventilators, no idea.
      - robbiep 6y ago
        One of the reasons we worked out we could get people through without ventilators was because we ran out of ventilators. And people with COVid are being vented for 2 weeks plus. A normal time (and a time that would minimise Kung damage from a vent) would be several days. But if someone has saturation’s in the shithouse, they’re going to die. Lack of oxygen (Hypoxia) in the blood is many many fold more common than severe thrombosis or whatever else was suggested; and the answer is right there - if the oxygen isn’t getting to the blood it’s because the lungs are shot. If we have enough gear, we put someone in ECMO to solve the gas exchange problem. Lung damage severe enough to do this is caused by the effects of the disease, not the ventilator
bzb3 6y ago
What % of people are asymptomatic?
- robbiep 6y ago
  The jury is still out AFAIK
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Varies, but in well studied outbreaks seems to end up around 5-10% more or less. Early on it seemed like the rate was higher but turns out that was presymptomatic.
  - ptero 6y ago
    Is this for the current coronavirus outbreak or historical? If current, can you share a few links to those. Honest question.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      Honestly, just go rummage through the links in r/covid19 on reddit. Skip the comments altogether since the audience there is becoming mostly optimists. Skip r/coronavirus for the opposite reason, all the doomers congregate there. But at least in r/covid19 the moderators are very aggressive in preventing posts that are not some kind of plausible scientific source. It's useful to see the latest studies as they come out, without any editorializing. But you do need to read them critically, since most have not yet been peer reviewed. You can also learn a lot from the occasional scientific commenters, they are quick to explain why a serosurvey showing 5% prevalence using a test with 98% specificity means the published results aren't worth much.
pjc50 6y ago
There is definitely a large number of people who haven't died, but have recovered extremely slowly; a friend of a friend was hospitalised for over 30 days. I have no idea how well this can be captured by the statistics.
Benmcdonald__ 6y ago
Why do those numbers seem off. To get those stats you have to include even uneffect children getting it. A disproportionate about of 20 year olds are infected. If you are in you 30s/40s you are still in danger. In the well tested korean population the fatality rate for 40–49 was 0.2%, 0.16% for 30s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Korea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_K...
- tripletao 6y ago
  The Korean number is the CFR (known deaths divided by known cases). The CDC number is the symptomatic IFR (all deaths divided by all symptomatic infected). These can't be directly compared--Korea has done a good job tracing and testing, but they're not claiming to be catching every case. In the other direction, Korea's number also includes asymptomatic cases while the CDC's doesn't. Korea's average CFR over all population is ~2x even the high estimates of IFR from serology in high-incidence regions (New York, Lombardy) or universal PCR testing of isolated populations (Diamond Princess). It would make sense that their underascertainment would be yet higher for younger people, if they experience lighter symptoms and are thus less likely to seek medical care.
mnm1 6y ago
The entire article talks about plenty of other risks than death. To try to pretend like death is the only risk is frankly stupid and harmful. Getting any of the conditions this article talks about would have life-changing repercussions and lead to a horrible and possibly much shorter life. So if you want to talk about the risks, the talk about the risks. Don't pick one single risk, ignore all the others, and pretend like you're not doing yourself and others a huge disservice. "Risks" is a plural word, after all.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> for people 49 and under It’s always easy to downplay the risks if you start excluding the most vulnerable.

glofish 6y ago
vice versa, it is just as easy to exaggerate the risks if you report and extrapolate from the subset of the worst cases,

droopyEyelids 6y ago

That would be comforting if the outcomes were limited to 'death' or 'full recovery'!

mrfusion 6y ago
Do you have a source on the amount of other outcomes for the 0-49 group? I haven’t come across that data. I’d be curious.
- rogerkirkness 6y ago
  ARDS is limited at this point almost exclusively to those over 75 with critical cases who happen to recover.
  - spaced-out 6y ago
    source?
  - hanklazard 6y ago
    I have not seen those numbers but regardless, ARDS is not the only morbidity we need to worry about. What if, of the 10% of hospitalized cases, half of those patients permanently lose a noticeable portion of their lung function? Not supplemental oxygen dependent but can’t walk as far or exercise the same way they could before. That’s a major life change for a huge number of people, when you extrapolate it out to the entire world. The threat of minor but permanent disability should not be ignored, especially in those who spent weeks on a vent.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  That's what still has me worried about this virus. What percent of people under 49 survive, but don't fully recover? When this disease started I thought I'd rather just get it and get it over with, but now I'd rather avoid taking a risk I don't have to.
nkkollaw 6y ago
From what I got, lung damage was actually caused by unnecessary ventilators. We now know that the vast majority of people are out of oxygen because of their blood and not lungs. This is an extremely mild disease, I would assume that in a few months we'll know enough to make it a minor inconvenience for most people (more than it already is, since most people don't even experience symptoms today). What long-term damage you know of (not saying there isn't, just curious)?
- robbiep 6y ago
  Prolonged ventilation is damaging to the lungs. But ventilation is not given lightly - usually it is for an acute deterioration and is life saving (ie without it, patient would have died in that instance). Interestingly in COVID it appears that positioning and CPAP/BIPAP can be more effective that venting in edge cases. This is a very new phenomenon in medicine, and we probably over vented in the early course of the pandemic. We were acting in what we knew of other severe respiratory diseases, and the case data from COVID hadn’t had enough time to present best treatment modalities. However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous
  - nicc 6y ago
    > However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous I was talking about permanent damage. I actually read my comment again, and that isn't really clear. Doctors in Italy are saying that ventilators were thought to be useful because people complained that they couldn't breath, but now they're saying that it's not the lungs that aren't working, but it's oxygen that is not carried out in the blood, and that ventilators can actually cause permanent damage in many cases. I'm not a doctor, so I just base everything on what the (supposed?) experts are saying. As far as I know they might very well say that on TV because there aren't enough ventilators, no idea.
    - robbiep 6y ago
      One of the reasons we worked out we could get people through without ventilators was because we ran out of ventilators. And people with COVid are being vented for 2 weeks plus. A normal time (and a time that would minimise Kung damage from a vent) would be several days. But if someone has saturation’s in the shithouse, they’re going to die. Lack of oxygen (Hypoxia) in the blood is many many fold more common than severe thrombosis or whatever else was suggested; and the answer is right there - if the oxygen isn’t getting to the blood it’s because the lungs are shot. If we have enough gear, we put someone in ECMO to solve the gas exchange problem. Lung damage severe enough to do this is caused by the effects of the disease, not the ventilator

bzb3 6y ago

What % of people are asymptomatic?

robbiep 6y ago
The jury is still out AFAIK
rootusrootus 6y ago
Varies, but in well studied outbreaks seems to end up around 5-10% more or less. Early on it seemed like the rate was higher but turns out that was presymptomatic.
- ptero 6y ago
  Is this for the current coronavirus outbreak or historical? If current, can you share a few links to those. Honest question.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    Honestly, just go rummage through the links in r/covid19 on reddit. Skip the comments altogether since the audience there is becoming mostly optimists. Skip r/coronavirus for the opposite reason, all the doomers congregate there. But at least in r/covid19 the moderators are very aggressive in preventing posts that are not some kind of plausible scientific source. It's useful to see the latest studies as they come out, without any editorializing. But you do need to read them critically, since most have not yet been peer reviewed. You can also learn a lot from the occasional scientific commenters, they are quick to explain why a serosurvey showing 5% prevalence using a test with 98% specificity means the published results aren't worth much.

pjc50 6y ago

There is definitely a large number of people who haven't died, but have recovered extremely slowly; a friend of a friend was hospitalised for over 30 days. I have no idea how well this can be captured by the statistics.

Benmcdonald__ 6y ago

Why do those numbers seem off. To get those stats you have to include even uneffect children getting it. A disproportionate about of 20 year olds are infected. If you are in you 30s/40s you are still in danger. In the well tested korean population the fatality rate for 40–49 was 0.2%, 0.16% for 30s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Korea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_K...

tripletao 6y ago
The Korean number is the CFR (known deaths divided by known cases). The CDC number is the symptomatic IFR (all deaths divided by all symptomatic infected). These can't be directly compared--Korea has done a good job tracing and testing, but they're not claiming to be catching every case. In the other direction, Korea's number also includes asymptomatic cases while the CDC's doesn't. Korea's average CFR over all population is ~2x even the high estimates of IFR from serology in high-incidence regions (New York, Lombardy) or universal PCR testing of isolated populations (Diamond Princess). It would make sense that their underascertainment would be yet higher for younger people, if they experience lighter symptoms and are thus less likely to seek medical care.

mnm1 6y ago

The entire article talks about plenty of other risks than death. To try to pretend like death is the only risk is frankly stupid and harmful. Getting any of the conditions this article talks about would have life-changing repercussions and lead to a horrible and possibly much shorter life. So if you want to talk about the risks, the talk about the risks. Don't pick one single risk, ignore all the others, and pretend like you're not doing yourself and others a huge disservice. "Risks" is a plural word, after all.