7 ms·

A January 2021 study in the annals of internal medicine estimating the death rates of non institutionalized patients of .26 percent with age breakdowns . https:

by mcwone 6y ago

A January 2021 study in the annals of internal medicine estimating the death rates of non institutionalized patients of .26 percent with age breakdowns . https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352?utm_source=24-scientists-determine-death-rate-covid-19-general-population&utm_medium=email&utm_content=published+in+the+Annals+of+Internal+Medicine&utm_campaign=ag&#t1-M205352 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352?utm_source=...

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Some more: > Indiana's IFR for noninstitutionalized persons older than 60 years is just below 2% (1 in 50). In comparison, the ratio is approximately 2.5 times greater than the estimated IFR for seasonal influenza, 0.8% (1 in 125), among those aged 65 years and older (5).
- legulere 6y ago
  That is just one factor though in which COVID-19 is worse than the seasonal influenza though. COVID-19 has a basic reproduction number of 3.3 – 5.7, while the seasonal influenza has one of 0.9 – 2.1 [1], which means that it spreads far more easily. You cannot just wait until summer for influenza season to be over. With influenza you have a higher rate of existing immunity in the population. With COVID-19 it is basically non-existent, except maybe for a few single people that had SARS or MERS before. Younger people are also more affected [2] You are longer sick from COVID-19 and if you have to stay in the hospital you will stay there longer and are more likely to end up on the intensive care unit [2] In the end you cannot compare a pandemic situation to influenza season. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85081-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85081-0
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    I wasn’t comparing it to anything. I was just writing more of the studies findings.
  - timr 6y ago
    "Younger people are also more affected [2]" The paper you're citing says "younger" means 59, vs 66 for influenza: > Patients with COVID-19 were younger (median age [IQR], 59 [45–71] vs 66 [52–77]; P < 0001) and had fewer comorbidities at baseline with a lower mean overall age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (mean [SD], 3.0 [2.6] vs 4.0 [2.7]; P < 0.001) than patients with seasonal influenza. Also, this is data from a single hospital, across two different years. The overall trends for SARS-CoV2 are not even remotely debatable: the risk of mortality rises exponentially with age. It's one of the most striking features of the virus. To claim, based on this one paper, that "younger people are more affected" is to miss the forest for the trees. "In the end you cannot compare a pandemic situation to influenza season." You absolutely can, and in fact, you're doing it. What you're trying to say is that Covid is somehow unilaterally much worse than influenza, but that isn't true. It's much worse for the elderly (>65), but for most other age groups, it's about the same, if not a little bit better. You have to squint and split hairs and pick sources selectively to start making strong claims of increased severity in age groups under ~50, and it's simply not a believable claim for people under the age of ~30. The disease can be bad without exaggerating its threat.
    - legulere 6y ago
      I just took the first study I could find. You seem to claim that it’s conclusions are wrong and that young people are less affected of COVID than influenza. Do you have good studies to back this up?
      - timr 6y ago
        I am telling you that your comment is not supported by the source you cited. You can find a wide range of publications showing the age-specific mortality profile of Covid by Googling. Here is one that is commonly cited: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1
raphaelj 6y ago
That seems pretty low compared to what is happening here in Belgium. We are at 22k deaths with +/- 25% of a 11M of the population having been infected (based on serology and statistical estimates).
- idoubtit 6y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, the rate in the paper is bigger, 0.25% against 22k/11M = 0.20% in Belgium. But if the newspaper I read are right, there is a catch: when tests were not available, Belgium counted as a covid death every case where it could be suspected. Even nowadays, in case of comorbidity, covid is always written down as the cause of death. So 22k is probably a maximum, and, taking into accound the 25% uncertainty on the denominator, the real rate could very different.
  - timerol 6y ago
    I think you're misreading the comment you replied to. "+/- 25% of a 11M of the population having been infected" means about 25% of 11M, or 2.75M, officially infected. 22k/2.75M would imply a 0.8% fatality rate.
    - raphaelj 6y ago
      Exactly. And with respect to the counting, it seems like the Belgian numbers more of less match the reported excess deaths in 2020 within 10% [1]. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250604v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250604v...
- lukeinkster 6y ago
  Seems low compared to New York City as well. NYC has already had 30,564 deaths. Even if the whole population had already been infected, that would put the death rate at around 0.36% Antibody surveys suggest around 40% have been infected which puts the death rate around 0.91%
  - 6y ago
jquery 6y ago
For every person that dies (an agonizing death akin to medieval torture), a few more are in intensive care fighting for their lives. For every one of those, others end up in the hospital, spread the disease to others, suffer from “long covid”, or merely suffer greatly. Every person that gets covid adds to the likelihood the disease will become uncontrollable in the long term and endemic. Keep wearing your masks and social distancing people. It’s hard, it’s a sacrifice, but together we can conquer this disease and return to life “as normal”.
- idoubtit 6y ago
  > For every person that dies (an agonizing death akin to medieval torture) I think this is wrong, at least in rich countries, at least those that are sane enough to cure their ill citizens. A friend of mine died of covid last year. Then a family member this year. They were both sedated, and did not suffer at all on their last days in hospitals.
  - jquery 6y ago
    Sedation is death with a respiratory illness like this. How were they feeling before they were sedated? Probably like they’d been drowning for hours. For all intents and purposes, that was the end of their life as far as their experience of it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that we can provide palliative comfort for those final hours/days. But it doesn’t tell the full story.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Just for clarity/augmentation/pedantic detail: you might be sedated and end up an a ventilator. But ventilators are really bad for COVID survival and really a last ditch, long-shot chance try to salvage your life. Practitioners hold off on the sedation and associated required ventilation as long as possible to try and spare your life.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  I don’t see any reason new variants would ever stop coming. What are you proposing is the end point of all of this?

by mcwone 6y ago

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Some more: > Indiana's IFR for noninstitutionalized persons older than 60 years is just below 2% (1 in 50). In comparison, the ratio is approximately 2.5 times greater than the estimated IFR for seasonal influenza, 0.8% (1 in 125), among those aged 65 years and older (5).

legulere 6y ago
That is just one factor though in which COVID-19 is worse than the seasonal influenza though. COVID-19 has a basic reproduction number of 3.3 – 5.7, while the seasonal influenza has one of 0.9 – 2.1 [1], which means that it spreads far more easily. You cannot just wait until summer for influenza season to be over. With influenza you have a higher rate of existing immunity in the population. With COVID-19 it is basically non-existent, except maybe for a few single people that had SARS or MERS before. Younger people are also more affected [2] You are longer sick from COVID-19 and if you have to stay in the hospital you will stay there longer and are more likely to end up on the intensive care unit [2] In the end you cannot compare a pandemic situation to influenza season. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85081-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85081-0
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  I wasn’t comparing it to anything. I was just writing more of the studies findings.
- timr 6y ago
  "Younger people are also more affected [2]" The paper you're citing says "younger" means 59, vs 66 for influenza: > Patients with COVID-19 were younger (median age [IQR], 59 [45–71] vs 66 [52–77]; P < 0001) and had fewer comorbidities at baseline with a lower mean overall age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (mean [SD], 3.0 [2.6] vs 4.0 [2.7]; P < 0.001) than patients with seasonal influenza. Also, this is data from a single hospital, across two different years. The overall trends for SARS-CoV2 are not even remotely debatable: the risk of mortality rises exponentially with age. It's one of the most striking features of the virus. To claim, based on this one paper, that "younger people are more affected" is to miss the forest for the trees. "In the end you cannot compare a pandemic situation to influenza season." You absolutely can, and in fact, you're doing it. What you're trying to say is that Covid is somehow unilaterally much worse than influenza, but that isn't true. It's much worse for the elderly (>65), but for most other age groups, it's about the same, if not a little bit better. You have to squint and split hairs and pick sources selectively to start making strong claims of increased severity in age groups under ~50, and it's simply not a believable claim for people under the age of ~30. The disease can be bad without exaggerating its threat.
  - legulere 6y ago
    I just took the first study I could find. You seem to claim that it’s conclusions are wrong and that young people are less affected of COVID than influenza. Do you have good studies to back this up?
    - timr 6y ago
      I am telling you that your comment is not supported by the source you cited. You can find a wide range of publications showing the age-specific mortality profile of Covid by Googling. Here is one that is commonly cited: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1

raphaelj 6y ago

That seems pretty low compared to what is happening here in Belgium. We are at 22k deaths with +/- 25% of a 11M of the population having been infected (based on serology and statistical estimates).

idoubtit 6y ago
If I'm not mistaken, the rate in the paper is bigger, 0.25% against 22k/11M = 0.20% in Belgium. But if the newspaper I read are right, there is a catch: when tests were not available, Belgium counted as a covid death every case where it could be suspected. Even nowadays, in case of comorbidity, covid is always written down as the cause of death. So 22k is probably a maximum, and, taking into accound the 25% uncertainty on the denominator, the real rate could very different.
- timerol 6y ago
  I think you're misreading the comment you replied to. "+/- 25% of a 11M of the population having been infected" means about 25% of 11M, or 2.75M, officially infected. 22k/2.75M would imply a 0.8% fatality rate.
  - raphaelj 6y ago
    Exactly. And with respect to the counting, it seems like the Belgian numbers more of less match the reported excess deaths in 2020 within 10% [1]. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250604v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250604v...
lukeinkster 6y ago
Seems low compared to New York City as well. NYC has already had 30,564 deaths. Even if the whole population had already been infected, that would put the death rate at around 0.36% Antibody surveys suggest around 40% have been infected which puts the death rate around 0.91%
- 6y ago

jquery 6y ago

For every person that dies (an agonizing death akin to medieval torture), a few more are in intensive care fighting for their lives. For every one of those, others end up in the hospital, spread the disease to others, suffer from “long covid”, or merely suffer greatly. Every person that gets covid adds to the likelihood the disease will become uncontrollable in the long term and endemic. Keep wearing your masks and social distancing people. It’s hard, it’s a sacrifice, but together we can conquer this disease and return to life “as normal”.

idoubtit 6y ago
> For every person that dies (an agonizing death akin to medieval torture) I think this is wrong, at least in rich countries, at least those that are sane enough to cure their ill citizens. A friend of mine died of covid last year. Then a family member this year. They were both sedated, and did not suffer at all on their last days in hospitals.
- jquery 6y ago
  Sedation is death with a respiratory illness like this. How were they feeling before they were sedated? Probably like they’d been drowning for hours. For all intents and purposes, that was the end of their life as far as their experience of it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that we can provide palliative comfort for those final hours/days. But it doesn’t tell the full story.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    Just for clarity/augmentation/pedantic detail: you might be sedated and end up an a ventilator. But ventilators are really bad for COVID survival and really a last ditch, long-shot chance try to salvage your life. Practitioners hold off on the sedation and associated required ventilation as long as possible to try and spare your life.
mrfusion 6y ago
I don’t see any reason new variants would ever stop coming. What are you proposing is the end point of all of this?