7 ms·

Not to be insensitive, but what's the death rate for healthy individuals in his age range? Next to zero? Italy reported that 99% of those who died from Corona h

by brink 6y ago

Not to be insensitive, but what's the death rate for healthy individuals in his age range? Next to zero? Italy reported that 99% of those who died from Corona had other health issues.[1] In my county (county, not country) it was reported that 99.4% of our Covid cases have recovered, and that was just the cases that were tracked. Yes, the vulnerable should be taken care of, but legitimately asking - why is there still hysteria over this? [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-tho...

midrus 6y ago
Because that 1% of people are lives that still matter??? WTF... I can't believe this.
- brink 6y ago
  Of course they do. So advise the 1% that's at risk to quarantine until we get a vaccine.
  - Pxtl 6y ago
    They tried that in Sweden and ended up killing a bunch of people.
    - FriendlyNormie 6y ago
      No one died. Eat shit faggot.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      Assuming an effective vaccine doesn't come anytime soon, which thusfar seems a safe assumption, other countries will have many deaths as well, just spread out more over the coming months/year[s?]. A flattened curve has the same area under it.
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Not the same 'died because of insufficient facilities' curve, not at all. Flattening is so healthcare capacity is not exceeded. Not-flattening has dire consequence, far beyond 'the same area under the curve'. Its the peaks of the curve that trigger the consequences.
        catalogia 6y ago
        > Flattening is so healthcare capacity is not exceeded. Sweden avoided that scenario. Their system was strained but did not collapse. They're still on track to have the same area under their curve. > The pandemic has put the Swedish healthcare system under severe strain, with tens of thousands of operations having been postponed. Initially, Swedish hospitals and other facilities reported a shortage of personal protective equipment. At the start of the pandemic, concerns were made that Swedish hospitals wouldn't have enough capacity to treat all who could become ill with the disease, especially in regard to those needing intensive care. Swedish hospitals were eventually able to double the number of intensive care beds in a few weeks, and the maximum capacity was never exceeded. Furthermore while their number of cases per day has been growing rapidly, the number of ICU hospitalizations per day and deaths per day have both been falling since April. Reports of Sweden's demise have been greatly exaggerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden Edit: > Compared to other Scandinavian nations, Sweden has experienced a much higher number of COVID-19 deaths; eight times that of Denmark and 19 times higher than Norway, despite being only twice those nations' populations Yes, that's exactly what you'd expect from a country that doesn't flatten their curve. A country that doesn't flatten their curve will have more deaths up front, but that doesn't mean they'll have more deaths in total when all is said and done.
        JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        I'm glad for them. What works in Sweden, may not work the same elsewhere.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Reports of Sweden's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Reports of Sweden's success are likely premature, though. The world has a long way left to go.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    This in unrealistic Sweden tried that and failed. It still imposed some limitations though, yet they have very large death rate. Besides, no one really know how susceptible he or she is to the disease; there are hundreds of examples of sickly 100+ old people having light cold and young seemingly healthy 35 y old people dying. Even more importantly, the diseases seems to have long term consequences even for the healthier people.
- cbg0 6y ago
  It's all just statistics until your loved ones are in the ICU because of covid.
- matz1 6y ago
  you can't expect 0% death, its unrealistic.
  - neurobashing 6y ago
    This is a strawman. No one reasonable thinks that you can eliminate deaths. But, when all it takes to avoid _the majority_ of fatalities is some mask wearing, hand-washing, and effort on the part of institutions (testing, contact tracking, etc) you can avoid _unnecessary_ deaths quite well; see South Korea for an example.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  I’d love to watch you die.
- doliveira 6y ago
  I'd argue that this year we've learned that the percentage of psychopathy in the general population is way higher than the 2% I've seen being estimated before.
  - meddlepal 6y ago
    I would argue our relentless pursuit of data driven outcomes and return on investment thinking has skewed the way people think about other human beings. We are just seeing the impact of that now as we face a significant enough species impacting event. Fun times.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Not to be insensitive, but we can’t assume a vaccine will be developed. Flattening the curve of infection (under this assumption) still has a similar area under the curve... (i.e. people are going to get infected, people are going to die because the virus is not going away).
  - MiroF 6y ago
    Well the original attempt was to close to eliminate it, like many of our peer nations have done. Since we've failed at that, it's going to be touch and go so that we flatten it.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Not likely possible unless all travel between nations is halted. Also, places like north korea will still access China which the world doesn’t trust in regards to data fidelity. Since we can’t have perfect access to information, it is impossible to stop the virus without a vaccine (and a vaccine might not be developed ever, this might be like HIV where 700k people die a year)
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    One point of flattening the curve is so people won't die waiting for a hospital bed to open up. Some of those people would have died anyway, but not all of them. Even supportive care like oxygen and intubation does actually seem to save some lives, and doctors are getting better at it with time. Additionally, treatments are getting better. Do you want to get sick in 6 months when everyone can get remdesivir and Regeneron's antibody therapy[0], or do you want to get it during a spike where you can't even be treated? [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2020/07/06/regeneron-antibody-therapy-for-covid-19-enters-late-stage-trials/#30a21305117c https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2020/07/06/regener...
  - redblacktree 6y ago
    Don't discount treatment methodologies. People who get the virus now are more likely to live than those who got it early, since health professionals are learning which treatments work. The area under the curve will not be the same if we buy time for our doctors and researchers to understand more about the virus and its effect on the body.
- gizmo 6y ago
  We didn't lock down for the Hong Kong flu or similar pandemics, because the damage caused by a lockdown is immense. Health damage caused by delayed cancer screenings and organ transplants. Psychological damage caused by lockdown and unemployment. Unbelievable economic damage. How to respond to a pandemic is a trade-off. People die in traffic accidents every day. Do we set a nation-wide speed limit of 5 MPH? No. Of course not. We accept that the benefit of travel are worth it, and we strive to make travel safer because every death is a tragedy. That's a balanced approach. For mild pandemics we should also seek such a balanced approach where we protect the old and the vulnerable and let everybody else live life as normal.
  - doliveira 6y ago
    Yours remind me of a comment from an (in)famous Brazilian political commenter that claimed that "more people die by choking" at the beginning of the pandemic.
    - gizmo 6y ago
      Many people have made statements that didn't age well. Hopefully you haven't forgotten about the ludicrous statements made by prominent epidemiologists, virologists and organizations like the WHO. Meanwhile we could trust the news to produce panic porn 24/7. Mass graves in Central Park! Sweden is doing an experiment in Human Sacrifice! Hopefully when the pandemic dies down we'll reflect on how the media and the scientific community completely failed to inform the people.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    Hong Kong flu was significantly less deadly than Covid in United states, perhaps 3 to 10 times. NYC death rate is at least .2% which would translate to 600 000 death across the US, and that is a very rough estimate. Even more importantly without lockdowns you'd get even worse clusterhell in the hospitals, which would have to do triage between neverneding stream of Covid patients and "normal" patients, who need an urgent surgery, and that would lead to enormous death rate rise so your argument is backwards actually.
- burgerzzz 6y ago
  I find this ironic in that the same people now suddenly believe every single life needs to be protected were the same people who supported drone strikes throughout the Middle East when it was Obama taking the lives. Now the "other guys" are risking lives and it's politically expedient, so everyone on one side of the political spectrum just joins this chorus of every life matters sans critical thought, devoid of any want or curiosity about the actual facts.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Depending on who you ask, drone strikes have killed somewhere between a couple hundred and a couple thousand civilians. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...) 1% of the world is 78 million people dead. (The virus won't hit 100% of people, but the numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands worldwide.)
    - burgerzzz 6y ago
      So because it was a smaller number, they’re less important? All I’m asking (and it applies to everyone of any political ideology) is where is the outrage when your favored party either allows or is responsible outright for deaths? Also, unintentional deaths are in the same ballpark as coronavirus deaths, why don’t we criminalize vehicles, bubble wrap our homes, or avoid anything that could possibly harm us? It’s a fair question in my mind.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > So because it was a smaller number, they’re less important? On a public policy level, sure. A million deaths tends to matter more than a thousand. This is hardly controversial. > Also, unintentional deaths are in the same ballpark as coronavirus deaths, why don’t we criminalize vehicles, bubble wrap our homes, or avoid anything that could possibly harm us? We do the cost/benefit analysis on a lot of such things. Cars are now larger, heavier, and more expensive because we've added various things that make occupants safer. Building codes have done the same for houses.
thijsvandien 6y ago
It isn't a binary kind of thing. You could survive with all sorts of long term issues. And here's the real "fun": nobody really knows what they are. Hence, recovering is rather relative.
Pxtl 6y ago
Because the number of people with "other conditions" is massive. Grab any family tree and shake it and somebody immunocompromised or asthmatic or with COPD or heart disease or whatever will fall out. Saying "oh, only people who aren't like me are at risk" is essentially what we're talking about when we talk about "conditions". It's practically narcissism.
BoiledCabbage 6y ago
I really wish people (not you) would stop pushing the idea that death is the only consequence of COVID. Three different NFL players have said their lungs still aren't recovered and they're still getting winded months after having COVID. These are people in their 30s and younger and in some of the best fitness in the world. Plenty of stories of blood clotting leading to many other issues in the general population during and past recovery. We don't know the consequences of this virus. No it's not a death sentence - but it's also not a minor flu.
- graeme 6y ago
  Have a link to a story about the nfl players? Hadn’t heard that one.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  >These are people in their 30s and younger and in some of the best fitness in the world. Professional athletes are known to be playing fast and loose with performance enhancing substances. So I am not sure that fitness and healthy are synonymous for them.
  - monkmartinez 6y ago
    I don't know why you are being downvoted! I agree with you... just because you are a professional athlete doesn't automatically place you in the "healthy" category. Its not just performance enhancing drugs either. These guys and gals beat the living crud out of their bodies and have to maintain body weight and strength that may not benefit their health. It is complex, but I don't for one second correlate healthy to professional athletes there are just too many cases that point toward, "its complicated and actually points toward, it is dangerous for your health to be a professional athlete."
- briefcomment 6y ago
  Aren't we all going to catch this sooner or later, especially with recent reports that it spreads 30 feet in the air through just breathing [1]? So while there are lasting effects on some who are infected, the vast majority probably handle it totally fine, there are probably more people who have had it than we previously thought, especially considering we're changing our assumptions on how contagious it is, and we're all going to get it anyway right? [1] https://knowridge.com/2020/07/covid-19-may-spread-10-meters-or-more-by-breathing-new-study-shows/ https://knowridge.com/2020/07/covid-19-may-spread-10-meters-...
znpy 6y ago
The hysteria is about hospital saturation. People recover, but a lot of people recover after spending a long time under intensive care and breathing machines (which are available in a limited quantity). So if a lot of people get sick at the same time then a lot of them will die just because there are not enough beds and intensive care units available. Dude don't be dismissive, this shit is serious.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Not sure if it is about hospitals any more. The confusion is we don’t have a goal in mind we agree on. e.g. Many hospitals are almost empty and they have to furlough doctors/nurses...
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > e.g. Many hospitals are almost empty and they have to furlough doctors/nurses... Hospitals are huge organizations with many different functions. You can be maxed out on ICU capacity at the same time you're furloughing the folks who work in elective plastic surgery, dermatology, mammography, etc.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    I think that's another issue. Surgeries and therapies are being delayed and rescheduled. That part (empty hospitals) is not about intensive care.
  - mercer 6y ago
    At least over here in NL, while hospitals are not over-taxed anymore, those who work in them really need a break.
- brink 6y ago
  > Dude don't be dismissive, this shit is serious. So is type 2 diabetes, so are traffic deaths, so is terrorism, so are heart attacks. All of which are somewhat preventable.
  - 6y ago
braythwayt 6y ago
Are you an epidemiologist? Physician specializing in blood and/or respiratory diseases? Failing that, have you scoured the available literature with a completely open mind, and can summarize the arguments ranging from taking this incredibly seriously to blowing it off as just a "flu?" Or have you seen one or two essays that seem persuasive, and quote the studies that happen to support the argument the author's wish to make? And are now passing that cherry-picked information around as if no other information exists? Science is not a "narrative," and describing it as such makes me deeply suspicious that you do not take this subject seriously. You pushing a point of view that is not the consensus amongst people who actually consider all of the data, and supporting it with one essay that happens to say what you want to hear... That is a narrative.
- daddy_ 6y ago
  I literally don’t care. I’m going to live my life.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    Wow, you're cool.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    ...no matter the damage it causes to others.
- Press2forEN 6y ago
  It is quite possible for someone to have all the credentials you specified and still agree with OP. Trying to credential-shame someone out of the conversation doesn't help anyone.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Then find them and quote them. We have enough problems dealing with the noise without the ignorant and uninformed jumping in with their convenient hot-takes. I _am_ going to credential-shame them, because this is not a time when we need to listen to idiots and amateurs -- it is time for those people to sit down and shut up.
dmos62 6y ago
To add to what the other commentor said, it's often overlooked that the outcomes are more complicated than life-or-death. There are more cases of people ending up permanently crippled by organ damage than dieing.
roywiggins 6y ago
For every death, there's an unknown number of people with severe, long-lasting effects that aren't currently captured in any statistics. Just ask Richard Quest. There's many, many more like him. This thing seems to do long-term damage to people, even people with "mild" courses of disease that don't even send them to hospital. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/health/richard-quest-covid-wellness-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/health/richard-quest-covid-we...
- Pxtl 6y ago
  This. I have lung damage from sloppy drywall mudding without a mask and overusing an orbital sander. It was my first time doing a large-scale drywall project, like 15 years ago. Let me tell you, it sucks. I have borderline asthma now. When it gets bad the wheezing sounds like an accordion in my throat and keeps me up half the night. On bad days I can taste the lung damage. When I do physical exercise I hack like a dying smoker. This is mild lung damage. And it does not heal fully - it's a "rest of my life" thing. As I understand it, this is what many Covid survivors have to look forwards to. Buy stock in corticosteroid inhaler manufacturers.
fullstop 6y ago
Three things: 1. He is 65 years old. 2. 0.6% of the population is a LOT of people. 3. Infected people linger in the ICU for a long time. If you are in a car accident, will they have room for you?
graeme 6y ago
What fraction of the population would you estimate has a pre-existing condition? Think carefully, considering that obesity is a pre-existing condition. This article says even being overweight has a higher risk. You’re also focussing on the death rate, but many of those hospitalized see after effects. https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2237?fbclid=IwAR1nV_GMu9sJKGpxF1BcDFaLUKxwu5uof3O_C4ly01oRf8jwI3nrBfzIZ24 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2237?fbclid=IwAR1nV_GMu...
csours 6y ago
Lots of reasons, but here's one: Saturation of healthcare resources. People who get sick with Covid are more likely to use hospital beds and resources, and for longer as well. Also, as you get older the more health issues you will pick up, statistically speaking. So if at age 70, 60% of the population have serious health issues, something like 60% of the population is vulnerable. Saying 99% of fatalities had other serious health issues is almost the same as saying that older populations are more vulnerable.
doliveira 6y ago
1% dies, ~ 10% are hospitalized, and many of those will have lifelong issues after recovering. So yeah, the body count piling up when not even 10% of the population has caught the disease kind of disproves your point. And 1/3 of the population has "existing conditions", so no, you're not just being insensitive.
jbeam 6y ago
It’s not just about the specific mortality of the disease. The virus is bad enough that a significant quantity of people need hospitalization. COVID patients in the hospital take a long time to recover or die. So if you fill a hospital to the brink with COVID patients, it takes a while for that capacity to be released. If the pandemic is left unattended, there won’t be space in the hospital for heart attacks, stroke, car crashes, or any number of other treatable conditions. Mortality for everything goes up.
fzeroracer 6y ago
If we assume that 1% of people who got the disease died, what is 1% of 209.5 million? When you put it to a percentage it may seem low, but when you calculate how many people would actually die as a result, you get a far different picture. That's just people that died, not counting the people who have reduced lung capacity or other damages as a result of the virus.
hiimtroymclure 6y ago
its been politicized so people have taken sides and people cant have their ideology be wrong. it will be many years before there is a consensus on how this pandemic was handled.
MiroF 6y ago
500,000 or more dead is a lot regardless of what their age is. I'd work on your empathy
baddox 6y ago
Many of us are concerned because when lots of people die, we think it's bad, even if those people "had other health issues." That doesn't seem so hysterical to me.
dougmwne 6y ago
You say that you are legitimately asking, so in the spirit of HN, I will assume good faith. Here is a RAND corporation whitepaper on chronic disease in the USA. Right at the top, it states that 60% of american adults have at least one chronic health condition. Obesity is also a big risk factor and we all know how many US adults have that comorbidity. http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/sites/default/files/TL221_final.pdf http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/sites/default/files/TL221... Excluding everyone perfectly healthy from the coronavirus death statistics is the ultimate exercise in data cherry-picking.
sg47 6y ago
Let's say you were granted complete immunity, would you willingly kill all your family members that are above 80?
cptskippy 6y ago
Is your county a fair representation of all demographics in your country? Are you taking into account the rise in annual deaths this year when Covid related deaths are removed? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2767980 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... Why are there more people dying from non-covid related deaths if everyone is in quarantine?
sergioj97 6y ago
Just wanted to note that while in your county the deaths from covid haven't exceeded (yet) 1% of infected, the article you link to states that in Italy, 8% of the infected have died (even though it acknowledges that this is higher than in other countries).
toss1 6y ago
Talk about lying with statistics to make an invalid point... Those "other illnesses" include conditions that are widely prevalent in the general population, high blood pressure, diabetes, asthma (present even in athletes), etc. Blood type A is strongly related to higher infection & death rates (~+45%). Vitamin D levels also show up in some studies of death rates. Moreover death is not the only key measure - large numbers of cases are also seeing serious long-term consequences, strokes, organ damage, overwhelming fatigue, etc. - especially in the young & otherwise healthy cases. While it is still early for studies, go check out "Covid long hauler" forums - you really don't want to risk this. tl;dr: this is 50-100X more deadly than flu, more contagious, and has far more serious & longer lasting consequences in substantial numbers of survivors. Suggesting that concerns should be minimized is foolish at best.
- drcongo 6y ago
  The things that get downvoted on HN never cease to amaze me.
parsimo2010 6y ago
According to that article, Italy was including high blood pressure as one of those "other illnisses." Bolsonaro is a 65 year old Brazilian, it's very possible he has high blood pressure and may not be considered healthy. Blood pressure is a significant health concern in Brazil (not that Brazil is special in this respect, many countries have problems with blood pressure). Edit to address your question about why there is hysteria over this: Because normally people with minor health complications can live just fine. Sure, a smoker might get winded if they run, and a diabetic might have to watch their diet, but most people can live a normal life even with a minor health issue. Now all of a sudden we have a disease going around that significantly raises their chance of dying. So if everyone in your family is perfectly healthy and you only rely on other perfectly healthy people at the places you work and shop, then it might seem overblown. But for many people we have relatives that could be at risk if they catch the disease or our livelihoods could be impacted if people are dying around us. I don't think we should be "hysterical" but there is cause for concern.
rocha 6y ago
I find useful to transform percentages to population scales. In your case, 99.4% recovery rate equals a 0.6% fatality rate. That translates to 1 fatality for every 166 people infected. Think about your social circle, how big is it? How many people there would be affected?

by brink 6y ago

midrus 6y ago

Because that 1% of people are lives that still matter??? WTF... I can't believe this.

brink 6y ago
Of course they do. So advise the 1% that's at risk to quarantine until we get a vaccine.
- Pxtl 6y ago
  They tried that in Sweden and ended up killing a bunch of people.
  - FriendlyNormie 6y ago
    No one died. Eat shit faggot.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    Assuming an effective vaccine doesn't come anytime soon, which thusfar seems a safe assumption, other countries will have many deaths as well, just spread out more over the coming months/year[s?]. A flattened curve has the same area under it.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Not the same 'died because of insufficient facilities' curve, not at all. Flattening is so healthcare capacity is not exceeded. Not-flattening has dire consequence, far beyond 'the same area under the curve'. Its the peaks of the curve that trigger the consequences.
      - catalogia 6y ago
        > Flattening is so healthcare capacity is not exceeded. Sweden avoided that scenario. Their system was strained but did not collapse. They're still on track to have the same area under their curve. > The pandemic has put the Swedish healthcare system under severe strain, with tens of thousands of operations having been postponed. Initially, Swedish hospitals and other facilities reported a shortage of personal protective equipment. At the start of the pandemic, concerns were made that Swedish hospitals wouldn't have enough capacity to treat all who could become ill with the disease, especially in regard to those needing intensive care. Swedish hospitals were eventually able to double the number of intensive care beds in a few weeks, and the maximum capacity was never exceeded. Furthermore while their number of cases per day has been growing rapidly, the number of ICU hospitalizations per day and deaths per day have both been falling since April. Reports of Sweden's demise have been greatly exaggerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden Edit: > Compared to other Scandinavian nations, Sweden has experienced a much higher number of COVID-19 deaths; eight times that of Denmark and 19 times higher than Norway, despite being only twice those nations' populations Yes, that's exactly what you'd expect from a country that doesn't flatten their curve. A country that doesn't flatten their curve will have more deaths up front, but that doesn't mean they'll have more deaths in total when all is said and done.
        JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        I'm glad for them. What works in Sweden, may not work the same elsewhere.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Reports of Sweden's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Reports of Sweden's success are likely premature, though. The world has a long way left to go.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  This in unrealistic Sweden tried that and failed. It still imposed some limitations though, yet they have very large death rate. Besides, no one really know how susceptible he or she is to the disease; there are hundreds of examples of sickly 100+ old people having light cold and young seemingly healthy 35 y old people dying. Even more importantly, the diseases seems to have long term consequences even for the healthier people.
cbg0 6y ago
It's all just statistics until your loved ones are in the ICU because of covid.
matz1 6y ago
you can't expect 0% death, its unrealistic.
- neurobashing 6y ago
  This is a strawman. No one reasonable thinks that you can eliminate deaths. But, when all it takes to avoid _the majority_ of fatalities is some mask wearing, hand-washing, and effort on the part of institutions (testing, contact tracking, etc) you can avoid _unnecessary_ deaths quite well; see South Korea for an example.
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
I’d love to watch you die.
doliveira 6y ago
I'd argue that this year we've learned that the percentage of psychopathy in the general population is way higher than the 2% I've seen being estimated before.
- meddlepal 6y ago
  I would argue our relentless pursuit of data driven outcomes and return on investment thinking has skewed the way people think about other human beings. We are just seeing the impact of that now as we face a significant enough species impacting event. Fun times.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Not to be insensitive, but we can’t assume a vaccine will be developed. Flattening the curve of infection (under this assumption) still has a similar area under the curve... (i.e. people are going to get infected, people are going to die because the virus is not going away).
- MiroF 6y ago
  Well the original attempt was to close to eliminate it, like many of our peer nations have done. Since we've failed at that, it's going to be touch and go so that we flatten it.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Not likely possible unless all travel between nations is halted. Also, places like north korea will still access China which the world doesn’t trust in regards to data fidelity. Since we can’t have perfect access to information, it is impossible to stop the virus without a vaccine (and a vaccine might not be developed ever, this might be like HIV where 700k people die a year)
- roywiggins 6y ago
  One point of flattening the curve is so people won't die waiting for a hospital bed to open up. Some of those people would have died anyway, but not all of them. Even supportive care like oxygen and intubation does actually seem to save some lives, and doctors are getting better at it with time. Additionally, treatments are getting better. Do you want to get sick in 6 months when everyone can get remdesivir and Regeneron's antibody therapy[0], or do you want to get it during a spike where you can't even be treated? [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2020/07/06/regeneron-antibody-therapy-for-covid-19-enters-late-stage-trials/#30a21305117c https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2020/07/06/regener...
- redblacktree 6y ago
  Don't discount treatment methodologies. People who get the virus now are more likely to live than those who got it early, since health professionals are learning which treatments work. The area under the curve will not be the same if we buy time for our doctors and researchers to understand more about the virus and its effect on the body.
gizmo 6y ago
We didn't lock down for the Hong Kong flu or similar pandemics, because the damage caused by a lockdown is immense. Health damage caused by delayed cancer screenings and organ transplants. Psychological damage caused by lockdown and unemployment. Unbelievable economic damage. How to respond to a pandemic is a trade-off. People die in traffic accidents every day. Do we set a nation-wide speed limit of 5 MPH? No. Of course not. We accept that the benefit of travel are worth it, and we strive to make travel safer because every death is a tragedy. That's a balanced approach. For mild pandemics we should also seek such a balanced approach where we protect the old and the vulnerable and let everybody else live life as normal.
- doliveira 6y ago
  Yours remind me of a comment from an (in)famous Brazilian political commenter that claimed that "more people die by choking" at the beginning of the pandemic.
  - gizmo 6y ago
    Many people have made statements that didn't age well. Hopefully you haven't forgotten about the ludicrous statements made by prominent epidemiologists, virologists and organizations like the WHO. Meanwhile we could trust the news to produce panic porn 24/7. Mass graves in Central Park! Sweden is doing an experiment in Human Sacrifice! Hopefully when the pandemic dies down we'll reflect on how the media and the scientific community completely failed to inform the people.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  Hong Kong flu was significantly less deadly than Covid in United states, perhaps 3 to 10 times. NYC death rate is at least .2% which would translate to 600 000 death across the US, and that is a very rough estimate. Even more importantly without lockdowns you'd get even worse clusterhell in the hospitals, which would have to do triage between neverneding stream of Covid patients and "normal" patients, who need an urgent surgery, and that would lead to enormous death rate rise so your argument is backwards actually.
burgerzzz 6y ago
I find this ironic in that the same people now suddenly believe every single life needs to be protected were the same people who supported drone strikes throughout the Middle East when it was Obama taking the lives. Now the "other guys" are risking lives and it's politically expedient, so everyone on one side of the political spectrum just joins this chorus of every life matters sans critical thought, devoid of any want or curiosity about the actual facts.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Depending on who you ask, drone strikes have killed somewhere between a couple hundred and a couple thousand civilians. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...) 1% of the world is 78 million people dead. (The virus won't hit 100% of people, but the numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands worldwide.)
  - burgerzzz 6y ago
    So because it was a smaller number, they’re less important? All I’m asking (and it applies to everyone of any political ideology) is where is the outrage when your favored party either allows or is responsible outright for deaths? Also, unintentional deaths are in the same ballpark as coronavirus deaths, why don’t we criminalize vehicles, bubble wrap our homes, or avoid anything that could possibly harm us? It’s a fair question in my mind.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > So because it was a smaller number, they’re less important? On a public policy level, sure. A million deaths tends to matter more than a thousand. This is hardly controversial. > Also, unintentional deaths are in the same ballpark as coronavirus deaths, why don’t we criminalize vehicles, bubble wrap our homes, or avoid anything that could possibly harm us? We do the cost/benefit analysis on a lot of such things. Cars are now larger, heavier, and more expensive because we've added various things that make occupants safer. Building codes have done the same for houses.

thijsvandien 6y ago

It isn't a binary kind of thing. You could survive with all sorts of long term issues. And here's the real "fun": nobody really knows what they are. Hence, recovering is rather relative.

Pxtl 6y ago

Because the number of people with "other conditions" is massive. Grab any family tree and shake it and somebody immunocompromised or asthmatic or with COPD or heart disease or whatever will fall out. Saying "oh, only people who aren't like me are at risk" is essentially what we're talking about when we talk about "conditions". It's practically narcissism.

BoiledCabbage 6y ago

I really wish people (not you) would stop pushing the idea that death is the only consequence of COVID. Three different NFL players have said their lungs still aren't recovered and they're still getting winded months after having COVID. These are people in their 30s and younger and in some of the best fitness in the world. Plenty of stories of blood clotting leading to many other issues in the general population during and past recovery. We don't know the consequences of this virus. No it's not a death sentence - but it's also not a minor flu.

graeme 6y ago
Have a link to a story about the nfl players? Hadn’t heard that one.
ReptileMan 6y ago
>These are people in their 30s and younger and in some of the best fitness in the world. Professional athletes are known to be playing fast and loose with performance enhancing substances. So I am not sure that fitness and healthy are synonymous for them.
- monkmartinez 6y ago
  I don't know why you are being downvoted! I agree with you... just because you are a professional athlete doesn't automatically place you in the "healthy" category. Its not just performance enhancing drugs either. These guys and gals beat the living crud out of their bodies and have to maintain body weight and strength that may not benefit their health. It is complex, but I don't for one second correlate healthy to professional athletes there are just too many cases that point toward, "its complicated and actually points toward, it is dangerous for your health to be a professional athlete."
briefcomment 6y ago
Aren't we all going to catch this sooner or later, especially with recent reports that it spreads 30 feet in the air through just breathing [1]? So while there are lasting effects on some who are infected, the vast majority probably handle it totally fine, there are probably more people who have had it than we previously thought, especially considering we're changing our assumptions on how contagious it is, and we're all going to get it anyway right? [1] https://knowridge.com/2020/07/covid-19-may-spread-10-meters-or-more-by-breathing-new-study-shows/ https://knowridge.com/2020/07/covid-19-may-spread-10-meters-...

znpy 6y ago

The hysteria is about hospital saturation. People recover, but a lot of people recover after spending a long time under intensive care and breathing machines (which are available in a limited quantity). So if a lot of people get sick at the same time then a lot of them will die just because there are not enough beds and intensive care units available. Dude don't be dismissive, this shit is serious.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
Not sure if it is about hospitals any more. The confusion is we don’t have a goal in mind we agree on. e.g. Many hospitals are almost empty and they have to furlough doctors/nurses...
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > e.g. Many hospitals are almost empty and they have to furlough doctors/nurses... Hospitals are huge organizations with many different functions. You can be maxed out on ICU capacity at the same time you're furloughing the folks who work in elective plastic surgery, dermatology, mammography, etc.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  I think that's another issue. Surgeries and therapies are being delayed and rescheduled. That part (empty hospitals) is not about intensive care.
- mercer 6y ago
  At least over here in NL, while hospitals are not over-taxed anymore, those who work in them really need a break.
brink 6y ago
> Dude don't be dismissive, this shit is serious. So is type 2 diabetes, so are traffic deaths, so is terrorism, so are heart attacks. All of which are somewhat preventable.
- 6y ago

braythwayt 6y ago

Are you an epidemiologist? Physician specializing in blood and/or respiratory diseases? Failing that, have you scoured the available literature with a completely open mind, and can summarize the arguments ranging from taking this incredibly seriously to blowing it off as just a "flu?" Or have you seen one or two essays that seem persuasive, and quote the studies that happen to support the argument the author's wish to make? And are now passing that cherry-picked information around as if no other information exists? Science is not a "narrative," and describing it as such makes me deeply suspicious that you do not take this subject seriously. You pushing a point of view that is not the consensus amongst people who actually consider all of the data, and supporting it with one essay that happens to say what you want to hear... That is a narrative.

daddy_ 6y ago
I literally don’t care. I’m going to live my life.
- MiroF 6y ago
  Wow, you're cool.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  ...no matter the damage it causes to others.
Press2forEN 6y ago
It is quite possible for someone to have all the credentials you specified and still agree with OP. Trying to credential-shame someone out of the conversation doesn't help anyone.
- evgen 6y ago
  Then find them and quote them. We have enough problems dealing with the noise without the ignorant and uninformed jumping in with their convenient hot-takes. I _am_ going to credential-shame them, because this is not a time when we need to listen to idiots and amateurs -- it is time for those people to sit down and shut up.

dmos62 6y ago

To add to what the other commentor said, it's often overlooked that the outcomes are more complicated than life-or-death. There are more cases of people ending up permanently crippled by organ damage than dieing.

roywiggins 6y ago

For every death, there's an unknown number of people with severe, long-lasting effects that aren't currently captured in any statistics. Just ask Richard Quest. There's many, many more like him. This thing seems to do long-term damage to people, even people with "mild" courses of disease that don't even send them to hospital. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/health/richard-quest-covid-wellness-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/health/richard-quest-covid-we...

Pxtl 6y ago
This. I have lung damage from sloppy drywall mudding without a mask and overusing an orbital sander. It was my first time doing a large-scale drywall project, like 15 years ago. Let me tell you, it sucks. I have borderline asthma now. When it gets bad the wheezing sounds like an accordion in my throat and keeps me up half the night. On bad days I can taste the lung damage. When I do physical exercise I hack like a dying smoker. This is mild lung damage. And it does not heal fully - it's a "rest of my life" thing. As I understand it, this is what many Covid survivors have to look forwards to. Buy stock in corticosteroid inhaler manufacturers.

fullstop 6y ago

Three things: 1. He is 65 years old. 2. 0.6% of the population is a LOT of people. 3. Infected people linger in the ICU for a long time. If you are in a car accident, will they have room for you?

graeme 6y ago

What fraction of the population would you estimate has a pre-existing condition? Think carefully, considering that obesity is a pre-existing condition. This article says even being overweight has a higher risk. You’re also focussing on the death rate, but many of those hospitalized see after effects. https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2237?fbclid=IwAR1nV_GMu9sJKGpxF1BcDFaLUKxwu5uof3O_C4ly01oRf8jwI3nrBfzIZ24 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2237?fbclid=IwAR1nV_GMu...

csours 6y ago

Lots of reasons, but here's one: Saturation of healthcare resources. People who get sick with Covid are more likely to use hospital beds and resources, and for longer as well. Also, as you get older the more health issues you will pick up, statistically speaking. So if at age 70, 60% of the population have serious health issues, something like 60% of the population is vulnerable. Saying 99% of fatalities had other serious health issues is almost the same as saying that older populations are more vulnerable.

doliveira 6y ago

1% dies, ~ 10% are hospitalized, and many of those will have lifelong issues after recovering. So yeah, the body count piling up when not even 10% of the population has caught the disease kind of disproves your point. And 1/3 of the population has "existing conditions", so no, you're not just being insensitive.

jbeam 6y ago

It’s not just about the specific mortality of the disease. The virus is bad enough that a significant quantity of people need hospitalization. COVID patients in the hospital take a long time to recover or die. So if you fill a hospital to the brink with COVID patients, it takes a while for that capacity to be released. If the pandemic is left unattended, there won’t be space in the hospital for heart attacks, stroke, car crashes, or any number of other treatable conditions. Mortality for everything goes up.

fzeroracer 6y ago

If we assume that 1% of people who got the disease died, what is 1% of 209.5 million? When you put it to a percentage it may seem low, but when you calculate how many people would actually die as a result, you get a far different picture. That's just people that died, not counting the people who have reduced lung capacity or other damages as a result of the virus.

hiimtroymclure 6y ago

its been politicized so people have taken sides and people cant have their ideology be wrong. it will be many years before there is a consensus on how this pandemic was handled.

MiroF 6y ago

500,000 or more dead is a lot regardless of what their age is. I'd work on your empathy

baddox 6y ago

Many of us are concerned because when lots of people die, we think it's bad, even if those people "had other health issues." That doesn't seem so hysterical to me.

dougmwne 6y ago

You say that you are legitimately asking, so in the spirit of HN, I will assume good faith. Here is a RAND corporation whitepaper on chronic disease in the USA. Right at the top, it states that 60% of american adults have at least one chronic health condition. Obesity is also a big risk factor and we all know how many US adults have that comorbidity. http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/sites/default/files/TL221_final.pdf http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/sites/default/files/TL221... Excluding everyone perfectly healthy from the coronavirus death statistics is the ultimate exercise in data cherry-picking.

sg47 6y ago

Let's say you were granted complete immunity, would you willingly kill all your family members that are above 80?

cptskippy 6y ago

Is your county a fair representation of all demographics in your country? Are you taking into account the rise in annual deaths this year when Covid related deaths are removed? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2767980 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... Why are there more people dying from non-covid related deaths if everyone is in quarantine?

sergioj97 6y ago

Just wanted to note that while in your county the deaths from covid haven't exceeded (yet) 1% of infected, the article you link to states that in Italy, 8% of the infected have died (even though it acknowledges that this is higher than in other countries).

toss1 6y ago

Talk about lying with statistics to make an invalid point... Those "other illnesses" include conditions that are widely prevalent in the general population, high blood pressure, diabetes, asthma (present even in athletes), etc. Blood type A is strongly related to higher infection & death rates (~+45%). Vitamin D levels also show up in some studies of death rates. Moreover death is not the only key measure - large numbers of cases are also seeing serious long-term consequences, strokes, organ damage, overwhelming fatigue, etc. - especially in the young & otherwise healthy cases. While it is still early for studies, go check out "Covid long hauler" forums - you really don't want to risk this. tl;dr: this is 50-100X more deadly than flu, more contagious, and has far more serious & longer lasting consequences in substantial numbers of survivors. Suggesting that concerns should be minimized is foolish at best.

drcongo 6y ago
The things that get downvoted on HN never cease to amaze me.

parsimo2010 6y ago

According to that article, Italy was including high blood pressure as one of those "other illnisses." Bolsonaro is a 65 year old Brazilian, it's very possible he has high blood pressure and may not be considered healthy. Blood pressure is a significant health concern in Brazil (not that Brazil is special in this respect, many countries have problems with blood pressure). Edit to address your question about why there is hysteria over this: Because normally people with minor health complications can live just fine. Sure, a smoker might get winded if they run, and a diabetic might have to watch their diet, but most people can live a normal life even with a minor health issue. Now all of a sudden we have a disease going around that significantly raises their chance of dying. So if everyone in your family is perfectly healthy and you only rely on other perfectly healthy people at the places you work and shop, then it might seem overblown. But for many people we have relatives that could be at risk if they catch the disease or our livelihoods could be impacted if people are dying around us. I don't think we should be "hysterical" but there is cause for concern.

rocha 6y ago

I find useful to transform percentages to population scales. In your case, 99.4% recovery rate equals a 0.6% fatality rate. That translates to 1 fatality for every 166 people infected. Think about your social circle, how big is it? How many people there would be affected?