4 ms·

What a terrible article. “Thirty-five-year-old scientists don’t get very sick with influenza.” The rate of hospitalization among 18-49 year olds with flu in t

What a terrible article. “Thirty-five-year-old scientists don’t get very sick with influenza.” The rate of hospitalization among 18-49 year olds with flu in the US was 54.1 per 100K in 2019-20. It’s rare, sure, but that kind of absolute statement from an anonymous researcher doesn’t instill confidence.

jakear 3y ago
[flagged]
- BryantD 3y ago
  That point is inaccurate. I quoted the stats; they are what they are.
  - jakear 3y ago
    Stats say nothing of relative severity, why do you think they’re relevant in any way? Edit: is your argument seriously “uhm actually, event X happens 0.054% of the time, so when you said {more rare version of X} doesn’t happen you’re wrong”
    - BryantD 3y ago
      Um, those are the numbers for hospitalization. So yes, there’s information about severity there. And yep, that’s my argument! The frequency of deadly viruses escaping from a bio lab is even lower, so if we’re going to eliminate possibilities based on percentages there are a few others that should get thrown out. It’s a minor point but, as I said, it’s sloppy reasoning. If the anonymous researcher had said “low probability” I wouldn’t care. Instead, this reads like someone who’s willing to hand wave specifics for the sake of rhetoric.
      - jakear 3y ago
        Hospitalization doesn’t mean severity. It has more to do with your confidence in your immune system and health insurance than anything else, though the hospital’s extra capacity and desire to make a buck off you is up there too. But if you’re here to be put off by the smallest use of rhetoric, sure pop off on that.
        BryantD 3y ago
        If I reversed it and said “this can’t be a lab leak because lab leaks never happen,” would that be okay? They’re certainly rarer than serious cases of flu among adults in the age range. It’s a contentious, difficult debate. I do actually think it’s bad to dismiss arguments you disagree with with casual rhetoric.
        jakear 3y ago
        If that rhetorical device led me to research and discover reputable data suggesting the frequency of such occurrences was indeed so minuscule as to be disregarded entirely, I’d welcome it upsetting my preconceived notions.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > The point is the young and healthy don’t get very sick. You get it, have the sniffles for a day or two, and move on with your life. Same for covid. We could have just embraced that blessing and let children continue to go to school and not experience massive declines in intelligence. But here we are. “Think of the really old people” was truly hilarious. Indeed, all we could do was “think” when my grandpa died alone because visiting the nursing home was banned. One thing to consider is not so much an individual's health and risk of getting serious ill, but rather that as the numbers grow geometrically, health care systems like hospitals can (and in fact, did) become severely overwhelmed. Even with measures in place, here in Los Angeles we were at a point where for example if you had a heart attack at home, an ambulance / hospital couldn't deal with you.m https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/us/los-angeles-county-california-human-disaster-covid/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/us/los-angeles-county-califor...
  - jakear 3y ago
    What really happened, as stated in the very source you gave, was that if you had a heart attack at home an ambulance would come to “deal with you” (because of course they would), but if they attempted to resuscitate you for 20 minutes and you still didn’t recover they wouldn’t then take you to the hospital. You should know the survival rate of a heart attack is far far lower than most expect, especially after 20 minutes of failed active attempts to resuscitate. The only real reason to take someone into a hospital after that is if they’re hypothermic or just so you can say “we did everything we could”. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cpr-expectations-idUSKCN1G72SW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cpr-expectations-i...
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > What really happened.... an ambulance would come to “deal with you” At one point, LA had to resort to Fire Trucks because ambulances were unavailable. If you don't think health care services were severely stretched, in some cases beyond breaking point (incl. staff unavailability because they themselves were sick), I really don't know what to say. This happened in New York as well. Of course there are also other places where that wasn’t the case, so there you could be less conservative with restrictions, but you may not know the risk in advance.
lifelong 3y ago
> What a terrible article. > “Thirty-five-year-old scientists don’t get very sick with influenza.” > It’s rare, sure Then what makes an article terrible when you agree with the statement?
- th0ma5 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Natsu 3y ago
  It really shouldn't be phrased as an absolute. But read charitably, when you have low N combined with rates that low, to expect that you wouldn't see noticeable illness in a small group of young, healthy people.

jakear 3y ago

[flagged]

BryantD 3y ago
That point is inaccurate. I quoted the stats; they are what they are.
- jakear 3y ago
  Stats say nothing of relative severity, why do you think they’re relevant in any way? Edit: is your argument seriously “uhm actually, event X happens 0.054% of the time, so when you said {more rare version of X} doesn’t happen you’re wrong”
  - BryantD 3y ago
    Um, those are the numbers for hospitalization. So yes, there’s information about severity there. And yep, that’s my argument! The frequency of deadly viruses escaping from a bio lab is even lower, so if we’re going to eliminate possibilities based on percentages there are a few others that should get thrown out. It’s a minor point but, as I said, it’s sloppy reasoning. If the anonymous researcher had said “low probability” I wouldn’t care. Instead, this reads like someone who’s willing to hand wave specifics for the sake of rhetoric.
    - jakear 3y ago
      Hospitalization doesn’t mean severity. It has more to do with your confidence in your immune system and health insurance than anything else, though the hospital’s extra capacity and desire to make a buck off you is up there too. But if you’re here to be put off by the smallest use of rhetoric, sure pop off on that.
      - BryantD 3y ago
        If I reversed it and said “this can’t be a lab leak because lab leaks never happen,” would that be okay? They’re certainly rarer than serious cases of flu among adults in the age range. It’s a contentious, difficult debate. I do actually think it’s bad to dismiss arguments you disagree with with casual rhetoric.
        jakear 3y ago
        If that rhetorical device led me to research and discover reputable data suggesting the frequency of such occurrences was indeed so minuscule as to be disregarded entirely, I’d welcome it upsetting my preconceived notions.
andsoitis 3y ago
> The point is the young and healthy don’t get very sick. You get it, have the sniffles for a day or two, and move on with your life. Same for covid. We could have just embraced that blessing and let children continue to go to school and not experience massive declines in intelligence. But here we are. “Think of the really old people” was truly hilarious. Indeed, all we could do was “think” when my grandpa died alone because visiting the nursing home was banned. One thing to consider is not so much an individual's health and risk of getting serious ill, but rather that as the numbers grow geometrically, health care systems like hospitals can (and in fact, did) become severely overwhelmed. Even with measures in place, here in Los Angeles we were at a point where for example if you had a heart attack at home, an ambulance / hospital couldn't deal with you.m https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/us/los-angeles-county-california-human-disaster-covid/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/us/los-angeles-county-califor...
- jakear 3y ago
  What really happened, as stated in the very source you gave, was that if you had a heart attack at home an ambulance would come to “deal with you” (because of course they would), but if they attempted to resuscitate you for 20 minutes and you still didn’t recover they wouldn’t then take you to the hospital. You should know the survival rate of a heart attack is far far lower than most expect, especially after 20 minutes of failed active attempts to resuscitate. The only real reason to take someone into a hospital after that is if they’re hypothermic or just so you can say “we did everything we could”. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cpr-expectations-idUSKCN1G72SW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cpr-expectations-i...
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > What really happened.... an ambulance would come to “deal with you” At one point, LA had to resort to Fire Trucks because ambulances were unavailable. If you don't think health care services were severely stretched, in some cases beyond breaking point (incl. staff unavailability because they themselves were sick), I really don't know what to say. This happened in New York as well. Of course there are also other places where that wasn’t the case, so there you could be less conservative with restrictions, but you may not know the risk in advance.

lifelong 3y ago

> What a terrible article. > “Thirty-five-year-old scientists don’t get very sick with influenza.” > It’s rare, sure Then what makes an article terrible when you agree with the statement?

th0ma5 3y ago
[flagged]
Natsu 3y ago
It really shouldn't be phrased as an absolute. But read charitably, when you have low N combined with rates that low, to expect that you wouldn't see noticeable illness in a small group of young, healthy people.