9 ms·

Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

19 points by mrfusion 6y ago

mrfusion 6y ago
I thought this quote was interesting: “What is remarkable about coronavirus is that if we are infected our chances of dying seems to mirror our chance of dying anyway over the next year, certainly once we pass the age of 20.”
- Gys 6y ago
  The future is now ;-)
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  It is interesting, but also a bit misleading. One has double the chance of dying in the next year if infected once and chance of reinfection in the next year. We also don't know the long-term effects on health, so those infected may have higher risks than charts from a pre-covid time either in following years or permanently.
- mtmail 6y ago
  "Mirror our chance" means the percentage is about the same, but the risk accumulates, so the total risk with Coronavirus is double.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  The same data could be formulated more alarmingly as: If you're over the age of seventy, catching COVID-19 carries double or triple the annual risk of death on top of your annual risk of death. Of course you're only going to die once in a given year and then never again. We'll have to wait a while to see how much lower mortality will go because we pulled in those deaths early.
- pmorici 6y ago
  I'm uncertain that is a reasonable statistical comparison. Seems like they are trying to use that to say it isn't a big deal but doesn't that mean that it doubles your risk of dying in a given year? It also doesn't include risk of serious long term complications.
  - iguy 6y ago
    We're uncertain about the death rate by at least a factor of 2 anyway. This "about one year" comparison corresponds to an estimate around one percent. Whether you think it's a big deal or not, it seems like a useful way to picture the numbers. And it's interesting that the age profile follows relatively well. This was not true (for instance) for the 1918 influenza, which had higher fatality among young adults.
pjc50 6y ago
No mention of the potential long term effects or long recovery time? Certain groups seem to have unexpectedly high death rates: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52752022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52752022 So the situation seems very much to depend on the risk of infection you face in day to day life. If that can be controlled, you're OK. If only we had a working tracing program.
- verdverm 6y ago
  It's essentially illegal or would be ineffective in the States. Can't gather the necessary detailed gps data (illegal) and enough people will not opt in that you can't catch all super spreaders, and individual actions (like crossing the street because you saw something) matrer
  - pjc50 6y ago
    It would easily be perfectly legal in the UK, we've just done it badly. (Not just about apps: plenty of countries have done a pencil and paper job, which is significantly better than nothing)
    - verdverm 6y ago
      It's mostly illegal there, most govts are figuring out what to do next time, as this ship has sailed
pmorici 6y ago
I really dislike the way the discussion around this has been framed. It seems to have centered around two polar extremes. On on end you have the idea that we should stay in "lockdown" until there is a cure or vaccine. On the other end you've got the "it's just the flu" crowd who doesn't want any public life restrictions while also nay saying zero cost things like masks that greatly reduce risk. Neither of those positions seems reasonable. Where are the reasonable leaders that recognize that it isn't practical to to have a "lockdown" waiting for a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case while at the same time recognizing that promoting small inexpensive behavior changes that keep this in check and reduce risk while that plays out is the way to prevent the need for more draconian measures. I also think the idea that taking any precaution even minor some how means you are "afraid". Total nonsense.
- lma22 6y ago
  >. Where are the reasonable leaders that recognize that it isn't practical to to have a "lockdown" waiting for a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case while at the same time recognizing that promoting small inexpensive behavior changes that keep this in check and reduce risk while that plays out is the way to prevent the need for more draconian measures. They're all over. Most US states are starting to open via "stage 1". Stage 1 includes multiple precautions.
  - pmorici 6y ago
    Very much felt like a lot of them got browbeat into it or those that wanted to down played the need for continued caution.
- ghthor 6y ago
  Masks are not zero cost, they are emotionally and physically taxing. I not wearing a mask if I'm not sick.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    Masks are nasty and I hate them. Most people using them have no idea how to use them and seem to think wearing a mask is sort of like wearing your +2 Item Of Immunity from The Game Of Covid19 and you don't need to do anything differently. They just magically help, no matter how much stupid stuff you do. My son said he saw someone wiping down a shopping cart with a wipe. It fell on the floor and and they picked it back up and kept wiping down the cart with it. This is not unlike how many people relate to their masks.
cybwraith 6y ago
Its understandable since this is BBC, but it also ignores the dramatic financial impact being hospitalized for COVID19 can have on the average family in the US. It could be 0.0001% fatality regardless of demographic, and people in the US should still be very cautious if the hospitalization rate stays the same. How many can afford to miss 3 weeks of work while recovering, let alone the bills afterwards or long-term health impacts. Will survivors end up needing expensive prescriptions or frequent doctor visits to maintain a normal quality of life post COVID19? If the US really wants to 'restart' the economy and have things kicking, government-guaranteed health coverage (at minimum for COVID-related issues) should be priority #1.
- jdkee 6y ago
  This is spot on. The fact that the U.S. does not have A single payer system and an estimated 600,000 annual medical bankruptcies is grounds for a total revamp. That and the fact that the U.S. spends twice as much per patient with no better outcomes than countries with socialized medicine.
- lumberingjack 6y ago
  They did that with Obamacare we have Obamacare
  - cybwraith 6y ago
    Most people have to pay for ACA plans out of pocket, and those plans still have massive coinsurance. 20-30% typically, which when your total hospital bill is $50k-100k, still adds up to enough to wreck most US family finances.
giardini 6y ago
Good article! Answer: not very scared! I'm surprised to hear people hyperventilating in fear while speaking of returning to the gym, school, or work. The press has a lot of fools whipped up into a frenzy with this virus. Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. And it kills so rarely! Over a period of 4 weeks I have periodically and anecdotally polled all friends by asking the questions: 1. Have you or anyone you directly know caught Covid-19? 2. Have you, or anyone you know, heard indirectly (i.e., someone told you) of someone they knew who had Covid-19? For me, the answer to 1 was "One person": an in-law who was in longterm care in a Hong Kong hospital and died of Covid-19. For me, the answer to 2 was still "One person". When I extended the questioning to all acquaintances the answer to 3 was "Six persons": the in-law and what a clerk described as "five men I know who are workers from South America." I asked him how the five dealt with the ailment and he said "They worked through it; they're young and strong and they need the jobs!" If you told me to find a Covid-19 patient I would be hard pressed to do so w/o visiting a local hospital or funeral home. Even then I doubt they would have one on hand.
- lma22 6y ago
  >Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. There's entire nations on lock down to stop the spread. Without such an order, you'd have much more than "very few cases". You said it, COVID-19 is "very contagious". >And it kills so rarely! If it spreads, there's less medical equipment, space, and personnel to help fight. This will increase the death rate. You can look at NY and Italy as an example. Not to mention, people are not statistics. If you mom dies, it doesn't comfort you that the mortality rate is so low. You want to keep mom safe. >When I extended the questioning to all acquaintances What's n? Is it statistically relevant? Where do you live? >If you told me to find a Covid-19 patient I would be hard pressed to do so w/o visiting a local hospital or funeral home. Even then I doubt they would have one on hand. What is even the point of this statement? Illness can be a danger to society without _you_ knowing where to "find" a patient.
  - giardini 6y ago
    The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post: "Good article! Answer: not very scared!" To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else one can do that will make one safer than to relax and enjoy the ride as best one can. So, for example, I read, exercise, eat right and live a somewhat normal life. The point of my last statement was emphasis: I was emphasizing how uncommon Covid-19 is and, in particular, how rare Covid-19 deaths are. The topic or thought of death is what seems to trigger panic in most people about Covid-19. Mention of the reality of Covid-19 is like waving a magic amulet: all I need do is utter "A Covid-19 death..." in a meeting and half the participants appear to void their bowels and the other half begin to make attempts to exit the room. Everybody needs to calm down and focus.
nate_meurer 6y ago
At this point it's clear that the most dangerous aspect of this disease is the risk of overwhelmed healthcare systems, which makes every one of us part of the "vulnerable population" regardless of our current physical conditions. When (or if) our healthcare systems adjust to this threat enough to be reasonably robust in the face of outbreaks, and to no longer be centers of infection, then lockdowns and strict distancing measures can no longer be justified simply to save lives. Nobody genuinely disagrees with this, and the reason you know this is that nobody is advocating for lockdowns and strict distancing to save lives from other widespread infectious diseases. In other words, lockdowns and strict distancing would undoubtedly save millions of lives every year from the multitude of infectious diseases we already live with, but nobody serious has ever suggested we sacrifice our economy to fight them in this way.
- makomk 6y ago
  It is indeed difficult to justify locking down indefinitely to save lives if you compare this to how we treat other infectious diseases, which is why the idea that it's monstrous to sacrifice even a single life in the name of saving the economy tends to go hand in hand with the belief that this must not be compared to any other infectious disease or cause of death.

19 points by mrfusion 6y ago

I thought this quote was interesting: “What is remarkable about coronavirus is that if we are infected our chances of dying seems to mirror our chance of dying anyway over the next year, certainly once we pass the age of 20.”

Gys 6y ago
The future is now ;-)
foolmeonce 6y ago
It is interesting, but also a bit misleading. One has double the chance of dying in the next year if infected once and chance of reinfection in the next year. We also don't know the long-term effects on health, so those infected may have higher risks than charts from a pre-covid time either in following years or permanently.
mtmail 6y ago
"Mirror our chance" means the percentage is about the same, but the risk accumulates, so the total risk with Coronavirus is double.
gridlockd 6y ago
The same data could be formulated more alarmingly as: If you're over the age of seventy, catching COVID-19 carries double or triple the annual risk of death on top of your annual risk of death. Of course you're only going to die once in a given year and then never again. We'll have to wait a while to see how much lower mortality will go because we pulled in those deaths early.
pmorici 6y ago
I'm uncertain that is a reasonable statistical comparison. Seems like they are trying to use that to say it isn't a big deal but doesn't that mean that it doubles your risk of dying in a given year? It also doesn't include risk of serious long term complications.
- iguy 6y ago
  We're uncertain about the death rate by at least a factor of 2 anyway. This "about one year" comparison corresponds to an estimate around one percent. Whether you think it's a big deal or not, it seems like a useful way to picture the numbers. And it's interesting that the age profile follows relatively well. This was not true (for instance) for the 1918 influenza, which had higher fatality among young adults.

pjc50 6y ago

No mention of the potential long term effects or long recovery time? Certain groups seem to have unexpectedly high death rates: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52752022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52752022 So the situation seems very much to depend on the risk of infection you face in day to day life. If that can be controlled, you're OK. If only we had a working tracing program.

verdverm 6y ago
It's essentially illegal or would be ineffective in the States. Can't gather the necessary detailed gps data (illegal) and enough people will not opt in that you can't catch all super spreaders, and individual actions (like crossing the street because you saw something) matrer
- pjc50 6y ago
  It would easily be perfectly legal in the UK, we've just done it badly. (Not just about apps: plenty of countries have done a pencil and paper job, which is significantly better than nothing)
  - verdverm 6y ago
    It's mostly illegal there, most govts are figuring out what to do next time, as this ship has sailed

pmorici 6y ago

I really dislike the way the discussion around this has been framed. It seems to have centered around two polar extremes. On on end you have the idea that we should stay in "lockdown" until there is a cure or vaccine. On the other end you've got the "it's just the flu" crowd who doesn't want any public life restrictions while also nay saying zero cost things like masks that greatly reduce risk. Neither of those positions seems reasonable. Where are the reasonable leaders that recognize that it isn't practical to to have a "lockdown" waiting for a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case while at the same time recognizing that promoting small inexpensive behavior changes that keep this in check and reduce risk while that plays out is the way to prevent the need for more draconian measures. I also think the idea that taking any precaution even minor some how means you are "afraid". Total nonsense.

lma22 6y ago
>. Where are the reasonable leaders that recognize that it isn't practical to to have a "lockdown" waiting for a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case while at the same time recognizing that promoting small inexpensive behavior changes that keep this in check and reduce risk while that plays out is the way to prevent the need for more draconian measures. They're all over. Most US states are starting to open via "stage 1". Stage 1 includes multiple precautions.
- pmorici 6y ago
  Very much felt like a lot of them got browbeat into it or those that wanted to down played the need for continued caution.
ghthor 6y ago
Masks are not zero cost, they are emotionally and physically taxing. I not wearing a mask if I'm not sick.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  Masks are nasty and I hate them. Most people using them have no idea how to use them and seem to think wearing a mask is sort of like wearing your +2 Item Of Immunity from The Game Of Covid19 and you don't need to do anything differently. They just magically help, no matter how much stupid stuff you do. My son said he saw someone wiping down a shopping cart with a wipe. It fell on the floor and and they picked it back up and kept wiping down the cart with it. This is not unlike how many people relate to their masks.

cybwraith 6y ago

Its understandable since this is BBC, but it also ignores the dramatic financial impact being hospitalized for COVID19 can have on the average family in the US. It could be 0.0001% fatality regardless of demographic, and people in the US should still be very cautious if the hospitalization rate stays the same. How many can afford to miss 3 weeks of work while recovering, let alone the bills afterwards or long-term health impacts. Will survivors end up needing expensive prescriptions or frequent doctor visits to maintain a normal quality of life post COVID19? If the US really wants to 'restart' the economy and have things kicking, government-guaranteed health coverage (at minimum for COVID-related issues) should be priority #1.

jdkee 6y ago
This is spot on. The fact that the U.S. does not have A single payer system and an estimated 600,000 annual medical bankruptcies is grounds for a total revamp. That and the fact that the U.S. spends twice as much per patient with no better outcomes than countries with socialized medicine.
lumberingjack 6y ago
They did that with Obamacare we have Obamacare
- cybwraith 6y ago
  Most people have to pay for ACA plans out of pocket, and those plans still have massive coinsurance. 20-30% typically, which when your total hospital bill is $50k-100k, still adds up to enough to wreck most US family finances.

giardini 6y ago

Good article! Answer: not very scared! I'm surprised to hear people hyperventilating in fear while speaking of returning to the gym, school, or work. The press has a lot of fools whipped up into a frenzy with this virus. Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. And it kills so rarely! Over a period of 4 weeks I have periodically and anecdotally polled all friends by asking the questions: 1. Have you or anyone you directly know caught Covid-19? 2. Have you, or anyone you know, heard indirectly (i.e., someone told you) of someone they knew who had Covid-19? For me, the answer to 1 was "One person": an in-law who was in longterm care in a Hong Kong hospital and died of Covid-19. For me, the answer to 2 was still "One person". When I extended the questioning to all acquaintances the answer to 3 was "Six persons": the in-law and what a clerk described as "five men I know who are workers from South America." I asked him how the five dealt with the ailment and he said "They worked through it; they're young and strong and they need the jobs!" If you told me to find a Covid-19 patient I would be hard pressed to do so w/o visiting a local hospital or funeral home. Even then I doubt they would have one on hand.

lma22 6y ago
>Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. There's entire nations on lock down to stop the spread. Without such an order, you'd have much more than "very few cases". You said it, COVID-19 is "very contagious". >And it kills so rarely! If it spreads, there's less medical equipment, space, and personnel to help fight. This will increase the death rate. You can look at NY and Italy as an example. Not to mention, people are not statistics. If you mom dies, it doesn't comfort you that the mortality rate is so low. You want to keep mom safe. >When I extended the questioning to all acquaintances What's n? Is it statistically relevant? Where do you live? >If you told me to find a Covid-19 patient I would be hard pressed to do so w/o visiting a local hospital or funeral home. Even then I doubt they would have one on hand. What is even the point of this statement? Illness can be a danger to society without _you_ knowing where to "find" a patient.
- giardini 6y ago
  The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post: "Good article! Answer: not very scared!" To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else one can do that will make one safer than to relax and enjoy the ride as best one can. So, for example, I read, exercise, eat right and live a somewhat normal life. The point of my last statement was emphasis: I was emphasizing how uncommon Covid-19 is and, in particular, how rare Covid-19 deaths are. The topic or thought of death is what seems to trigger panic in most people about Covid-19. Mention of the reality of Covid-19 is like waving a magic amulet: all I need do is utter "A Covid-19 death..." in a meeting and half the participants appear to void their bowels and the other half begin to make attempts to exit the room. Everybody needs to calm down and focus.

nate_meurer 6y ago

At this point it's clear that the most dangerous aspect of this disease is the risk of overwhelmed healthcare systems, which makes every one of us part of the "vulnerable population" regardless of our current physical conditions. When (or if) our healthcare systems adjust to this threat enough to be reasonably robust in the face of outbreaks, and to no longer be centers of infection, then lockdowns and strict distancing measures can no longer be justified simply to save lives. Nobody genuinely disagrees with this, and the reason you know this is that nobody is advocating for lockdowns and strict distancing to save lives from other widespread infectious diseases. In other words, lockdowns and strict distancing would undoubtedly save millions of lives every year from the multitude of infectious diseases we already live with, but nobody serious has ever suggested we sacrifice our economy to fight them in this way.

makomk 6y ago
It is indeed difficult to justify locking down indefinitely to save lives if you compare this to how we treat other infectious diseases, which is why the idea that it's monstrous to sacrifice even a single life in the name of saving the economy tends to go hand in hand with the belief that this must not be compared to any other infectious disease or cause of death.