6 ms·

>That's an ongoing pandemic that makes covid-19 look like a case of the sniffles How? There are literally 3 times more deaths in the last year than peak Malari

by soperj 6y ago

>That's an ongoing pandemic that makes covid-19 look like a case of the sniffles How? There are literally 3 times more deaths in the last year than peak Malaria, and that's only deaths that were actually counted.

missedthecue 6y ago
Covid's victims are mostly in their 70s and above. Malaria's victims are mostly under 5 years of age. In terms of life-years lost, Malaria is far far worse.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  Yes, and, imagine you're 40 years old, and your 75 years old parents die, or your two 5 years old kids
- owenversteeg 6y ago
  The average age of death from the coronavirus appears to be in the 80s for many countries. In Norway it's 84, in the UK it's 82.4. You also have to take into account the health of those involved. Saving a life only for that person to live a few low quality years in poor health is worth less than saving the life of a healthy young child. The resulting measure is the QALY, the quality adjusted life year. Unfortunately there has not been nearly enough research or discussion about QALYs and their applicability to the coronavirus. There are a few studies out there, though, here's one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hec.4208 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hec.4208 TLDR: the mean discounted QALYs lost by someone dying of the coronavirus in the US is 4.3.
Tepix 6y ago
You're comparing the worldwide Covid-19 numbers with the malaria numbers of a small region.
- soperj 6y ago
  You're wrong.
reddog 6y ago
Because malaria has been killing people consistently for thousands of years? You can easily add Tuberculosis to the makes-covid-look-like-sniffles list as well. Over the last 200 years 1 billion people have died of TB. https://www.nature.com/articles/502S2a https://www.nature.com/articles/502S2a
- eloff 6y ago
  Yes. Add HIV to that list as well. Polio, which is almost gone now. It's a long list.
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  It's incorrect to say it looks like sniffles in comparison. This is basically severity / priority in software. If we left sars-covid-19 without mitigation for a century, it would catch up rapidly. You compare things over relevant intervals. There are far more influenza deaths over the last 3 decades than ebola, but ebola is far more severe and greater concern.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    > If we left sars-covid-19 without mitigation for a century, it would catch up rapidly. I think that's probably wrong? The most likely outcome would be that after the initial pandemic subsided (with lots of deaths), most people would catch it when they were reasonably young and then be mostly protected. This is different from malaria, which is much more deadly.
    - eloff 6y ago
      Yes. Also evolution tends to favor making diseases better adapted to their hosts and note virulent, but less deadly. We have a number of Coronaviruses endemic to humans that cause the common cold (among other viruses.) That's probably how covid19 would turn out, left to its own devices.
      - estaseuropano 6y ago
MongooseMan 6y ago
Comparing the deaths side by side misses an important aspect: most malaria deaths are children, whereas Covid mostly affects older age groups.
- soperj 6y ago
  Because old people are worth less than children?
  - fastball 6y ago
    Yes but not in the way you're implying. A child dying robs them and the world of 60+ years of human life. An 80 year old dying of COVID-19 was not going to live much longer anyway, so the loss is less severe. Old people have already had the opportunity to live a "full" life. Imagine two societies – one where a disease kills 50% of < 10s every year, and another that kills 50% of > 70s every year. Which society would do better? Which society would you rather live in?
    - soperj 6y ago
      In the US, more people in the 55-74 age range have died than the 85+. Those are people who are taking care of grand children, or are still working. These are people that society has spent decades making fully functioning parts of society. A child has had none of that investment. A society of just children wouldn't work, just as a society without wouldn't work.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Is your goal to just be as misleading as possible in this conversation? Yes, of course more 55-74s have died – there are far, far more of them than there are >85s. Normalized, COVID is far more lethal (8x more lethal) for >85s than for your range. Here's the mortality rates: 55-74: 0.28% 85+: 2.5% https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the... https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
eloff 6y ago
Yes, but over the course of history, there's no comparison. Which was my point. Covid-19 is hopefully going to be short-lived thanks to the vaccines, but even if it weren't for that it would likely become more virulent but less deadly over time like the other Coronaviruses that are endemic in humans. There is a also a big difference in lives lost at the end of life versus at the beginning.
- soperj 6y ago
  >Covid-19 is hopefully going to be short-lived thanks to the vaccines, but even if it weren't for that it would likely become more virulent but less deadly over time like the other Coronaviruses that are endemic in humans. Over the last year it's be come more virulent and more deadly. We have no idea how well the vaccines are going to work. We have a situation right now where a country(india) with 100 million people vaccinated is getting 350,000 cases a day, and it's doubling every 10 days. That's a scenario where the evolution around the protection a vaccine offers becomes a very real and distinct possibility.
  - eloff 6y ago
    > Over the last year it's be come more virulent and more deadly. Evolution is a somewhat random process at its heart, but I stand by what I said as the likely outcome, because that's the path new diseases normally take. It's early days yet. > We have no idea how well the vaccines are going to work I think we have a petty good idea by now actually. A bigger question is how much will it be hampered by people afraid or unwilling to be vaccinated? I have never in my life seen such widespread and illogical fear of vaccines. We may have to just accept that there will be an ongoing toll in the unvaccinated population that keeps the virus circulating in quantity and keeps the hospitals busy. Until sufficiently many develop natural antibodies through infection. > We have a situation right now where a country(india) with 100 million people vaccinated is getting 350,000 cases a day, and it's doubling every 10 days. That's a scenario where the evolution around the protection a vaccine offers becomes a very real and distinct possibility. Yes, that's a tail risk that's real and terrifying. I think the risk is small given such a mutation would possibly render the virus much less virulent. The vaccines tend to target the spike protein, without which it can't even infect humans. But nature finds a way. We can and will also adapt the vaccines in that case though. The money, motivation, and technical expertise are all there. But nobody knows how likely a risk that is.
jjk166 6y ago
That's peak malaria deaths in a single country Globally, malaria kills 1-3 million people annually despite many people having some natural resistance to it and there being many effective treatments for it and it already having been eradicated in many areas. Covid killed the same amount in a much larger population that had no pre-existing defenses or treatments.

by soperj 6y ago

missedthecue 6y ago

Covid's victims are mostly in their 70s and above. Malaria's victims are mostly under 5 years of age. In terms of life-years lost, Malaria is far far worse.

cutemonster 6y ago
Yes, and, imagine you're 40 years old, and your 75 years old parents die, or your two 5 years old kids
owenversteeg 6y ago
The average age of death from the coronavirus appears to be in the 80s for many countries. In Norway it's 84, in the UK it's 82.4. You also have to take into account the health of those involved. Saving a life only for that person to live a few low quality years in poor health is worth less than saving the life of a healthy young child. The resulting measure is the QALY, the quality adjusted life year. Unfortunately there has not been nearly enough research or discussion about QALYs and their applicability to the coronavirus. There are a few studies out there, though, here's one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hec.4208 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hec.4208 TLDR: the mean discounted QALYs lost by someone dying of the coronavirus in the US is 4.3.

Tepix 6y ago

You're comparing the worldwide Covid-19 numbers with the malaria numbers of a small region.

soperj 6y ago
You're wrong.

reddog 6y ago

Because malaria has been killing people consistently for thousands of years? You can easily add Tuberculosis to the makes-covid-look-like-sniffles list as well. Over the last 200 years 1 billion people have died of TB. https://www.nature.com/articles/502S2a https://www.nature.com/articles/502S2a

eloff 6y ago
Yes. Add HIV to that list as well. Polio, which is almost gone now. It's a long list.
throwaway5752 6y ago
It's incorrect to say it looks like sniffles in comparison. This is basically severity / priority in software. If we left sars-covid-19 without mitigation for a century, it would catch up rapidly. You compare things over relevant intervals. There are far more influenza deaths over the last 3 decades than ebola, but ebola is far more severe and greater concern.
- jefftk 6y ago
  > If we left sars-covid-19 without mitigation for a century, it would catch up rapidly. I think that's probably wrong? The most likely outcome would be that after the initial pandemic subsided (with lots of deaths), most people would catch it when they were reasonably young and then be mostly protected. This is different from malaria, which is much more deadly.
  - eloff 6y ago
    Yes. Also evolution tends to favor making diseases better adapted to their hosts and note virulent, but less deadly. We have a number of Coronaviruses endemic to humans that cause the common cold (among other viruses.) That's probably how covid19 would turn out, left to its own devices.
    - estaseuropano 6y ago

MongooseMan 6y ago

Comparing the deaths side by side misses an important aspect: most malaria deaths are children, whereas Covid mostly affects older age groups.

soperj 6y ago
Because old people are worth less than children?
- fastball 6y ago
  Yes but not in the way you're implying. A child dying robs them and the world of 60+ years of human life. An 80 year old dying of COVID-19 was not going to live much longer anyway, so the loss is less severe. Old people have already had the opportunity to live a "full" life. Imagine two societies – one where a disease kills 50% of < 10s every year, and another that kills 50% of > 70s every year. Which society would do better? Which society would you rather live in?
  - soperj 6y ago
    In the US, more people in the 55-74 age range have died than the 85+. Those are people who are taking care of grand children, or are still working. These are people that society has spent decades making fully functioning parts of society. A child has had none of that investment. A society of just children wouldn't work, just as a society without wouldn't work.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Is your goal to just be as misleading as possible in this conversation? Yes, of course more 55-74s have died – there are far, far more of them than there are >85s. Normalized, COVID is far more lethal (8x more lethal) for >85s than for your range. Here's the mortality rates: 55-74: 0.28% 85+: 2.5% https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the... https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

eloff 6y ago

Yes, but over the course of history, there's no comparison. Which was my point. Covid-19 is hopefully going to be short-lived thanks to the vaccines, but even if it weren't for that it would likely become more virulent but less deadly over time like the other Coronaviruses that are endemic in humans. There is a also a big difference in lives lost at the end of life versus at the beginning.

soperj 6y ago
>Covid-19 is hopefully going to be short-lived thanks to the vaccines, but even if it weren't for that it would likely become more virulent but less deadly over time like the other Coronaviruses that are endemic in humans. Over the last year it's be come more virulent and more deadly. We have no idea how well the vaccines are going to work. We have a situation right now where a country(india) with 100 million people vaccinated is getting 350,000 cases a day, and it's doubling every 10 days. That's a scenario where the evolution around the protection a vaccine offers becomes a very real and distinct possibility.
- eloff 6y ago
  > Over the last year it's be come more virulent and more deadly. Evolution is a somewhat random process at its heart, but I stand by what I said as the likely outcome, because that's the path new diseases normally take. It's early days yet. > We have no idea how well the vaccines are going to work I think we have a petty good idea by now actually. A bigger question is how much will it be hampered by people afraid or unwilling to be vaccinated? I have never in my life seen such widespread and illogical fear of vaccines. We may have to just accept that there will be an ongoing toll in the unvaccinated population that keeps the virus circulating in quantity and keeps the hospitals busy. Until sufficiently many develop natural antibodies through infection. > We have a situation right now where a country(india) with 100 million people vaccinated is getting 350,000 cases a day, and it's doubling every 10 days. That's a scenario where the evolution around the protection a vaccine offers becomes a very real and distinct possibility. Yes, that's a tail risk that's real and terrifying. I think the risk is small given such a mutation would possibly render the virus much less virulent. The vaccines tend to target the spike protein, without which it can't even infect humans. But nature finds a way. We can and will also adapt the vaccines in that case though. The money, motivation, and technical expertise are all there. But nobody knows how likely a risk that is.

jjk166 6y ago

That's peak malaria deaths in a single country Globally, malaria kills 1-3 million people annually despite many people having some natural resistance to it and there being many effective treatments for it and it already having been eradicated in many areas. Covid killed the same amount in a much larger population that had no pre-existing defenses or treatments.