11 ms·

243 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S. (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality). The death distributions are very cl

by aantix 5y ago

243 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S. (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality). The death distributions are very clear. If you're healthy, betting that you would be OK is a very reasonable bet.

r00fus 5y ago
Death is merely the most extreme outcome. Not dying doesn't mean you're OK. Long COVID is a big deal, and it apparently affects half of those who get COVID [1]. Furthermore, even double-vaxxed, while protected against hospitalization or death, are still at risk (reduced about 50%) for long COVID [2]. Until/unless Omicron has been proven to have less severe long covid symptoms, yeah I'm treating it with the same caution that I'd do with Delta. [1] https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/how-many-people-get-long-covid-more-half-researchers-find/ https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/how-many-people-get-... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03495-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03495-2
- timr 5y ago
  > Long COVID is a big deal Long Covid is not a defined term. It comprises everything from "post-hospitalization syndrome" -- which is something that has existed since long before Covid -- to "slight cough for a few weeks". If you're young (under 65) and otherwise healthy, you are highly unlikely to have anything more than a minor illness. Particularly after vaccination. Here's a paper that might interest you: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2785832 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... > In this cross-sectional analysis of 26,823 adults from the population-based French CONSTANCES cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 infection was associated with most persistent physical symptoms, whereas laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was associated only with [loss of smell]. In other words, in a large study out of France, the only "long covid symptom" actually correlated with SARS-CoV2 infection was loss of smell. All of the other various symptoms were associated with self-reported illness, but not confirmed illness. This is a fairly strong argument that "long covid" is at least partly psychosomatic. We'd probably see this more clearly if the various "long covid" studies didn't rely exclusively on self-reporting of symptoms, and mix together all levels of illness.
  - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
    Ironically if this is true, then the people loudly handwringing about "long covid" are the ones who are inflicting it on others, by encouraging people to fear it. To combat this, perhaps we could swap the masks out with gags. /s
- in_cahoots 5y ago
  That article is so bad it might as well be misinformation. 79% of the people in the study were hospitalized, and the authors did not correct for this.
dTal 5y ago
That works out to 1-in-400. 6 times more deadly than base jumping. Not factoring the risk of long-term disability from post-viral CFS. I'll happily give those odds a miss.
- aantix 5y ago
  Those (likely) aren't your odds. Without knowing your specific background, your numbers are probably much less. E.g. ages 0-17, there's been 644 deaths. Across a cohort with ~75,000,000 people. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Ag...
  - jonathanstrange 5y ago
    Assuming that OP is a teenager or toddler...I guess that could be called "passive-aggressive optimism."
    - dTal 5y ago
      And I've had a HN account for over 8 years... precocious little scamp aren't I!
ceejayoz 5y ago
Some NFL stadiums host 100k people. Would you go to a game if you knew 243 people were going to be randomly executed at it?
- iso1631 5y ago
  I suspect many people would go especially if they knew 243 people were going, the types of people who believe it wouldn't happen to them, only to others (probably someone who made the "bad choices" in life because god/fate/karma/etc)
- aantix 5y ago
  Would you attend the game if it were 11 people? Because that's what you do every time you drive. 11 crash fatalities per 100,000 people. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state#fatal-crash-totals https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >Because that's what you do every time you drive. 11 crash fatalities per 100,000 people This is a ludicrous abuse of statistics. 11 fatalities per 100k people is 11 fatalities per 100k people's worth of trips. That is a few orders of magnitude less than executing 11 people out of every 100k who show up to a stadium.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Driving has benefits. Getting infected with COVID does not.
    - mixedCase 5y ago
      Except COVID is not the end goal here, it is living a full life in proximity to other human beings that comes with a risk of getting COVID. It is no different in purpose than driving for the most part.
      - 5y ago
jjk166 5y ago
For context, the cancer death rate is 153 per 100,000 in the US, so about 60% of the risk from Covid. Am I living in constant fear of cancer? No. Am I taking reasonable precautions to avoid getting cancer? Yes.
ineedasername 5y ago
Depends on what you consider reasonable. Per this study [0] NYC had, as of June 2020, about 100 deaths under age 65 from people without comorbidities. During the same time period there were about 200,000 cases. This made the chance of a healthy person dying from COVID about 1 in 2000. Given the option, I'm not taking that bet. I wouldn't play Russian roulette even with a 2000-bullet revolver. Especially when there are pretty simple steps I can take to further minimize the risk. (It would be nice to have more-- and updated-- data than this. If anyone is aware of a source, I'd love to know about it) That's also discounting other (and possibly not yet known) complications from getting COVID. There might not be much of any, but we it will be some time before we know that so I wouldn't discount that factor in my risk analysis. Serious measure to mitigate transmission rates still seems like a very reasonable practice, even for healthy people. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/
- aantix 5y ago
  >Depends on what you consider reasonable Thank-you for acknowledging the subjectivity of Risk Tolerance.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Yep, we all draw our own lines on that. The complicating factor with COVID is that acting on your own higher risk tolerance impacts other people too. That's why we've seen such disagreement in society over the types & level of precautions to take. (Apart from when it is just outright politicized for political gain)

by aantix 5y ago

r00fus 5y ago

Death is merely the most extreme outcome. Not dying doesn't mean you're OK. Long COVID is a big deal, and it apparently affects half of those who get COVID [1]. Furthermore, even double-vaxxed, while protected against hospitalization or death, are still at risk (reduced about 50%) for long COVID [2]. Until/unless Omicron has been proven to have less severe long covid symptoms, yeah I'm treating it with the same caution that I'd do with Delta. [1] https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/how-many-people-get-long-covid-more-half-researchers-find/ https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/how-many-people-get-... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03495-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03495-2

timr 5y ago
> Long COVID is a big deal Long Covid is not a defined term. It comprises everything from "post-hospitalization syndrome" -- which is something that has existed since long before Covid -- to "slight cough for a few weeks". If you're young (under 65) and otherwise healthy, you are highly unlikely to have anything more than a minor illness. Particularly after vaccination. Here's a paper that might interest you: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2785832 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... > In this cross-sectional analysis of 26,823 adults from the population-based French CONSTANCES cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 infection was associated with most persistent physical symptoms, whereas laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was associated only with [loss of smell]. In other words, in a large study out of France, the only "long covid symptom" actually correlated with SARS-CoV2 infection was loss of smell. All of the other various symptoms were associated with self-reported illness, but not confirmed illness. This is a fairly strong argument that "long covid" is at least partly psychosomatic. We'd probably see this more clearly if the various "long covid" studies didn't rely exclusively on self-reporting of symptoms, and mix together all levels of illness.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  Ironically if this is true, then the people loudly handwringing about "long covid" are the ones who are inflicting it on others, by encouraging people to fear it. To combat this, perhaps we could swap the masks out with gags. /s
in_cahoots 5y ago
That article is so bad it might as well be misinformation. 79% of the people in the study were hospitalized, and the authors did not correct for this.

dTal 5y ago

That works out to 1-in-400. 6 times more deadly than base jumping. Not factoring the risk of long-term disability from post-viral CFS. I'll happily give those odds a miss.

aantix 5y ago
Those (likely) aren't your odds. Without knowing your specific background, your numbers are probably much less. E.g. ages 0-17, there's been 644 deaths. Across a cohort with ~75,000,000 people. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Ag...
- jonathanstrange 5y ago
  Assuming that OP is a teenager or toddler...I guess that could be called "passive-aggressive optimism."
  - dTal 5y ago
    And I've had a HN account for over 8 years... precocious little scamp aren't I!

ceejayoz 5y ago

Some NFL stadiums host 100k people. Would you go to a game if you knew 243 people were going to be randomly executed at it?

iso1631 5y ago
I suspect many people would go especially if they knew 243 people were going, the types of people who believe it wouldn't happen to them, only to others (probably someone who made the "bad choices" in life because god/fate/karma/etc)
aantix 5y ago
Would you attend the game if it were 11 people? Because that's what you do every time you drive. 11 crash fatalities per 100,000 people. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state#fatal-crash-totals https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Because that's what you do every time you drive. 11 crash fatalities per 100,000 people This is a ludicrous abuse of statistics. 11 fatalities per 100k people is 11 fatalities per 100k people's worth of trips. That is a few orders of magnitude less than executing 11 people out of every 100k who show up to a stadium.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Driving has benefits. Getting infected with COVID does not.
  - mixedCase 5y ago
    Except COVID is not the end goal here, it is living a full life in proximity to other human beings that comes with a risk of getting COVID. It is no different in purpose than driving for the most part.
    - 5y ago

jjk166 5y ago

For context, the cancer death rate is 153 per 100,000 in the US, so about 60% of the risk from Covid. Am I living in constant fear of cancer? No. Am I taking reasonable precautions to avoid getting cancer? Yes.

ineedasername 5y ago

Depends on what you consider reasonable. Per this study [0] NYC had, as of June 2020, about 100 deaths under age 65 from people without comorbidities. During the same time period there were about 200,000 cases. This made the chance of a healthy person dying from COVID about 1 in 2000. Given the option, I'm not taking that bet. I wouldn't play Russian roulette even with a 2000-bullet revolver. Especially when there are pretty simple steps I can take to further minimize the risk. (It would be nice to have more-- and updated-- data than this. If anyone is aware of a source, I'd love to know about it) That's also discounting other (and possibly not yet known) complications from getting COVID. There might not be much of any, but we it will be some time before we know that so I wouldn't discount that factor in my risk analysis. Serious measure to mitigate transmission rates still seems like a very reasonable practice, even for healthy people. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/

aantix 5y ago
>Depends on what you consider reasonable Thank-you for acknowledging the subjectivity of Risk Tolerance.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Yep, we all draw our own lines on that. The complicating factor with COVID is that acting on your own higher risk tolerance impacts other people too. That's why we've seen such disagreement in society over the types & level of precautions to take. (Apart from when it is just outright politicized for political gain)