6 ms·
Did you see the parts of the article where they say that the most severe, “consequential damage” is predominantly found in the elderly and most severely ill? Yo
by irq11 6y ago
Did you see the parts of the article where they say that the most severe, “consequential damage” is predominantly found in the elderly and most severely ill? You’re implying that people who have mild cases (>99% of all cases; remember: over 40% cases are so mild that they’re considered “asymptomatic”, and for every one case we detect, 10-20 others never even bother to be tested!) have some kind of neurological damage. That isn’t what this article says.
Aside from a very tiny group who had strokes (again, mostly elderly), this research shows predominantly mild symptoms that (e.g. headache, insomnia), which would not be expected to persist.
If you read past the headline, you will see that even this article makes it clear that the vast majority of patients have minimal symptoms:
” Another large-scale study, this one with 909 coronavirus patients in Madrid, showed that 90% of cases simultaneously experienced changes to, or the loss of, the sense of smell and taste. In most of these cases, these changes were the only clinical expression of coronavirus or were accompanied by other minor symptoms.”
- starkd 6y agoThe headline was indeed more inflammatory than the facts of the article. It seems like the media wants people to panic.
- beamatronic 6y agoMaybe the media wants to inform people that they should wear a mask.
- krapp 6y ago> The headline was indeed more inflammatory than the facts of the article. It seems like the media wants people to panic. I wouldn't conflate a clickbait headline on a single article by a single website into a widespread conspiracy by "the media" to spread panic.
- hkeide 6y agoThe incentives to write scary articles are clear. No secret cabal required.
- sosborn 6y agoIt's not a conspiracy, but anyone that has worked in or with a newsroom will tell you that panic and fear sell newspapers (or clicks). Reporters get judged on article engagement and being humans, they optimize for the metric that they get judged on.
- ericb 6y agoThe phrase "If it bleeds it leads" was coined in 1989. Seems apt.
- lbeltrame 6y agoI can't speak for the article here, but at least some local media in my country wants to generate clicks and views, so the more horrifying the headline (but also the article contents), the better. See the recent matter on antibody decline: few if any got it right (although it can mean a waning immune response it is not enough to tell if it is happening).
- SimbaOnSteroids 6y agoA small percentage change in the output of knowledge workers would have an outsized effect on the overall economy. This kind of data is as dramatic as the title suggests. We can’t afford to poke this bear.
- enraged_camel 6y ago>>A small percentage change in the output of knowledge workers would have an outsized effect on the overall economy. Especially in the US, where healthcare bills are the number one reason for personal bankruptcies (66.5%).
- gotoeleven 6y agoI don't know why people are downvoting you. The hacker news karen-signal has been activated I guess.
- beezle 6y agoThe problem is that there have been no large scale studies on those who were released from the hospital nor on those who were deemed 'not sick enough' to be hospitalized in the first place. Hopefully TX, FL, AZ are used as a basis for some study as so many of those in the hospital now are young (ie, under 40).
- koheripbal 6y agoNo, but these small scale studies point to prolonged complications only in those who were the most elderly and/or the most severely sick.
- ivalm 6y ago> You’re implying that people who have mild cases (>99% of all cases; remember: over 40% cases are so mild The death rate alone is ~0.8%. There are another few percent that require hospitalization. The >99% of covid cases are not mild.
- hkeide 6y agoAre you talking about confirmed cases here?
- ivalm 6y agoI am talking about serological studies in Italy and South Korea. For confirmed cases death rates are 5%, but that’s because a bunch of people are positive and untested (many of them asymptomatic). One thing to remember that at any one time there might be 99% not serious, but that includes a bunch of people who are recovering from serious or who will degrade to serious. Over the full cycle of the disease a much larger percentage will have a serious state. Close to 1% will die. At the same time, being in prone position, getting steroids, etc really do seem to increase survival so maybe the death rate now is lower.
- timr 6y ago"The death rate alone is ~0.8%." It is not. The current estimates for IFR run from ~0.2-0.7%. The current best estimate of IFR from the CDC is 0.65%, with the deaths skewed heavily to the elderly and infirm. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- tigershark 6y agoCDC estimate, just 1 week ago, before this catastrophic correction, was 0.25% or something similar. MONTHS ago we had the results from a huge Spanish study that put the mortality rate at around 1% and it was perfectly coherent with the Italian and New York studies. Why should we believe their current estimate when we have multiple results that actually give us a pretty high confidence of the actual mortality rate instead of looking at what seem like completely random figures?
- tigershark 6y agoStop spreading misinformation in here please. There is no way that >99% cases are mild when the current estimates put the actual fatality rate to around 1%. You are just repeating Trump lies, and lies are not well accepted here.