6 ms·

There we go again. In NYC, 19 out of 100,000 people aged 18-45 died. (1) There are roughly 110M people in that age group in the U.S. so that would mean 21000 d

There we go again. In NYC, 19 out of 100,000 people aged 18-45 died. (1) There are roughly 110M people in that age group in the U.S. so that would mean 21000 deaths if the virus would spread as widely throughout the U.S. as it has in NYC (which is estimated to be around 25% of the population). 21000 deaths is not "near zero", nor is the population aged over 45 primarily found in nursing homes. 1) https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

redis_mlc 6y ago
> 21000 deaths is not "near zero" I'm not sure what your contrived narrative is, but actually it is near zero, far less than several other causes of death. (The annual mortality rate is over 1,000 per 100,000, so 19 per 100,000 is a round-off error.) "He noted that between January and April in 2018, more than 234,000 people in the United States died of heart disease and nearly 199,000 died of cancer. So far during the coronavirus pandemic, there have been about 16,700 Covid-19 deaths in the United States, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University." https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/coronavirus-not-leading-cause-of-death-us-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/coronavirus-not-leadin... Even auto deaths are higher at 37,461 in 2016: "For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... There is nothing the US can do to get to zero deaths from corona, so a more pragmatic public health policy is needed than "lock 300 million people down for years."
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  How many of those people who died from cancer and heart diseased are aged 18-45? These numbers are largely irrelevant if we dont compare them apples-to-apples with the numbers in their proper cohort. In any case, these tactics, namely cherry-picking, callousness towards human life, and flippant dismissal of the points of others, make it very hard to have a discussion here. It does not seem like the posts are being made to debate but instead pummel into submission. Finally, there have been over 100,000 Covid-19 deaths in the US. Each one of them a human who could have not died from Covid-19.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    You are confusing empathy with US public healthcare policy. The first considers populations of individuals, the latter 300 million. And no, I'm not here to debate. I'm here to reinforce the message that policy needs to be considered at the national level, not the individual level. I can see from the hundreds of downvotes I've received in the past two months that very few people are considering the larger picture for society. I call that selfish. I seldom refer to IFR and CFR because the testing data is unreliable, so I use mortality numbers. If you feel that you're good with statistics and have accurate enough US data, please do some analysis and let people know. (I actually wasn't cherry-picking, but a more complete analysis should include mortality by age range.) For the record, I have no preference for the Democratic or Republican parties, and would like to see corona policy depoliticized. Mixing corona policy with the upcoming elections will not turn out well.
    - wsatb 6y ago
      > I can see from the hundreds of downvotes I've received in the past two months that very few people are considering the larger picture for society. I call that selfish. This is quite the accusation. I think everyone is well aware of the long term impact of this lockdown, but when you start thinking of that 21k as real people: your brother, your sister, your niece, or your nephew, your best friend, shit gets real fast. If it's selfish to not want my loved ones to die because our economy and healthcare system is so woefully flawed and unprepared, then I guess I'm selfish. Maybe we'll learn something this time, but probably not.
      - hedora 6y ago
        The WHO is predicting 1 billion people will starve this year. Over 800 million of that is attributed to the COVID response. If you divide out the numbers, for each person the global lockdown saves from COVID, it will starve 100. I’m not the sort willing to torture a hundred innocent strangers (and kill dozens) to save one of my loved ones. Either people are not “well aware” of the impacts of the shutdown, or we have radically different ethical standards.
- mdemare 6y ago
  No, the annual death rate for the age group 18-45 is not 1000, it’s around 150. That is, even in the group of adults least affected by Covid-19, it would be near the top of the list for causes of death. In the most affected group (75+), the casualty rate is nearly 100 times higher. It would be around the murder rate in Cincinnati (if all victims were 18-45 and the infection rate was equal to NYC) I don’t have a narrative - I don’t pretend to know what the best course of action is. But I am pointing out some of the glaring factual errors repeatedly made by people who are dismissive of the severity of this disease.
  - hedora 6y ago
    I suspect you are quoting case fatality rates instead of death rates. In particular, the whole-population rate is <= 0.5%. (International agencies and other governments say 0.5%, the CDC says (1-.3)*.4%). That includes asymptomatic and undiagnosed people. Case fatality rates only include diagnosed cases. Clearly, if you are diagnosed with the virus, you are more likely to die from it than an asymptomatic person, or a person with minor symptoms that doesn’t bother to call a doctor. It is true that, at 100% infection rate, it would be the leading cause of death this year. The thing is, it’s a one time hit to life expectancies, so it’s not really comparable to the other risks. That means it can be the number one cause of death, even though 99.5% of the people that catch it will recover and die of something else.
    - mdemare 6y ago
      > I suspect you are quoting case fatality rates instead of death rates No. There were 652 confirmed deaths and 129 probably deaths in NYC in the 18-44 age group. If there are 3 million people in that age group in NYC (my estimate, look up if you want the exact number) that gives a confirmed death rate of 21.7 per 100k and confirmed + probable death rate of 27 per 100k. Close enough.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    Instead of taking shots at people on HN, write a detailed document and add a link - that would be useful. But I'm not going to debate inaccurate corona statistics with a pedant on HN. The mortality rate for young people is less than 1% - low for a pandemic. Ebola is 50% and up, and recurs every other year. > it’s a one time hit to life expectancies For people who actually get acutely sick from corona. I agree the 5% or so of people who get acutely ill will have a shortened lifespan, but there's no data for the other 95%.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> 21000 deaths is not "near zero" I'm not sure what your contrived narrative is, but actually it is near zero, far less than several other causes of death. (The annual mortality rate is over 1,000 per 100,000, so 19 per 100,000 is a round-off error.) "He noted that between January and April in 2018, more than 234,000 people in the United States died of heart disease and nearly 199,000 died of cancer. So far during the coronavirus pandemic, there have been about 16,700 Covid-19 deaths in the United States, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University." https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/coronavirus-not-leading-cause-of-death-us-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/coronavirus-not-leadin... Even auto deaths are higher at 37,461 in 2016: "For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... There is nothing the US can do to get to zero deaths from corona, so a more pragmatic public health policy is needed than "lock 300 million people down for years."

wbronitsky 6y ago
How many of those people who died from cancer and heart diseased are aged 18-45? These numbers are largely irrelevant if we dont compare them apples-to-apples with the numbers in their proper cohort. In any case, these tactics, namely cherry-picking, callousness towards human life, and flippant dismissal of the points of others, make it very hard to have a discussion here. It does not seem like the posts are being made to debate but instead pummel into submission. Finally, there have been over 100,000 Covid-19 deaths in the US. Each one of them a human who could have not died from Covid-19.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  You are confusing empathy with US public healthcare policy. The first considers populations of individuals, the latter 300 million. And no, I'm not here to debate. I'm here to reinforce the message that policy needs to be considered at the national level, not the individual level. I can see from the hundreds of downvotes I've received in the past two months that very few people are considering the larger picture for society. I call that selfish. I seldom refer to IFR and CFR because the testing data is unreliable, so I use mortality numbers. If you feel that you're good with statistics and have accurate enough US data, please do some analysis and let people know. (I actually wasn't cherry-picking, but a more complete analysis should include mortality by age range.) For the record, I have no preference for the Democratic or Republican parties, and would like to see corona policy depoliticized. Mixing corona policy with the upcoming elections will not turn out well.
  - wsatb 6y ago
    > I can see from the hundreds of downvotes I've received in the past two months that very few people are considering the larger picture for society. I call that selfish. This is quite the accusation. I think everyone is well aware of the long term impact of this lockdown, but when you start thinking of that 21k as real people: your brother, your sister, your niece, or your nephew, your best friend, shit gets real fast. If it's selfish to not want my loved ones to die because our economy and healthcare system is so woefully flawed and unprepared, then I guess I'm selfish. Maybe we'll learn something this time, but probably not.
    - hedora 6y ago
      The WHO is predicting 1 billion people will starve this year. Over 800 million of that is attributed to the COVID response. If you divide out the numbers, for each person the global lockdown saves from COVID, it will starve 100. I’m not the sort willing to torture a hundred innocent strangers (and kill dozens) to save one of my loved ones. Either people are not “well aware” of the impacts of the shutdown, or we have radically different ethical standards.
mdemare 6y ago
No, the annual death rate for the age group 18-45 is not 1000, it’s around 150. That is, even in the group of adults least affected by Covid-19, it would be near the top of the list for causes of death. In the most affected group (75+), the casualty rate is nearly 100 times higher. It would be around the murder rate in Cincinnati (if all victims were 18-45 and the infection rate was equal to NYC) I don’t have a narrative - I don’t pretend to know what the best course of action is. But I am pointing out some of the glaring factual errors repeatedly made by people who are dismissive of the severity of this disease.
- hedora 6y ago
  I suspect you are quoting case fatality rates instead of death rates. In particular, the whole-population rate is <= 0.5%. (International agencies and other governments say 0.5%, the CDC says (1-.3)*.4%). That includes asymptomatic and undiagnosed people. Case fatality rates only include diagnosed cases. Clearly, if you are diagnosed with the virus, you are more likely to die from it than an asymptomatic person, or a person with minor symptoms that doesn’t bother to call a doctor. It is true that, at 100% infection rate, it would be the leading cause of death this year. The thing is, it’s a one time hit to life expectancies, so it’s not really comparable to the other risks. That means it can be the number one cause of death, even though 99.5% of the people that catch it will recover and die of something else.
  - mdemare 6y ago
    > I suspect you are quoting case fatality rates instead of death rates No. There were 652 confirmed deaths and 129 probably deaths in NYC in the 18-44 age group. If there are 3 million people in that age group in NYC (my estimate, look up if you want the exact number) that gives a confirmed death rate of 21.7 per 100k and confirmed + probable death rate of 27 per 100k. Close enough.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Instead of taking shots at people on HN, write a detailed document and add a link - that would be useful. But I'm not going to debate inaccurate corona statistics with a pedant on HN. The mortality rate for young people is less than 1% - low for a pandemic. Ebola is 50% and up, and recurs every other year. > it’s a one time hit to life expectancies For people who actually get acutely sick from corona. I agree the 5% or so of people who get acutely ill will have a shortened lifespan, but there's no data for the other 95%.