Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

worldometers.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 438 posts

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#171

Post by CrazyStat »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #68
nik_s wrote: post #57

The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…

It's difficult/impossible to put a specific probability (which would be an oxymoron) on any one particular person dying. The somewhat vague risk factors take time to accumulate from statically-larger samples if there were more deaths. We know it's a couple of orders of magnitude worse than the seasonal flu but less than the 1918 flu and the plague, hence the extreme quarantine measures to reduce its infectivity to es…

> specific probability (which would be an oxymoron)

Not at all. For example, if I flip a fair coin, I can assign a very specific probability to the event that I get heads.

> We know it's a couple of orders of magnitude worse than the seasonal flu

Maybe one order of magnitude. Seasonal flu is about 0.1-0.2% mortality in the US. The evidence suggests that covid-19 is less than 1% mortality.

> hence the extreme quarantine measures to reduce its infectivity to essentially 0

It doesn't need a high mortality rate to justify extreme quarantine measures. The fear is that it will become a perpetual thing, another seasonal illness like the flu. Even if the mortality rate were the same as the flu it would be worth taking extreme measures to avoid that.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#172

Post by drclau »

AJRF wrote: post #101
drclau wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s something off about Iran. According to Wikipedia [0], Spanish Flu killed a much higher percentage in Iran too, in comparison with the rest of the world: “The World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio). [...] In Iran, the mortality was very high: according to an estimate, between 902,400 and 2,431,000, or 8% to 22% of the total population died.” — source…

It's hard to find up to date records filtered by country, but they might have higher count of the ACE2 enzyme which is thought to be an entry point for coronaviruses. Asian populations have much higher count than other populations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_...

Would that mean Covid-19 would progress faster once inside the body? I assume that could mean an infected person’s immune system could be overwhelmed, hence resulting in a more severe case and even death.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#173

Post by selectstatement »

mns wrote: post #141
nik_s wrote: post #57

The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…

I do have one question and I'm asking this seriously, not to start an argument or to attack someone. I also saw this here in a lot of the posts about covid-19. We have numbers, but every time people tend to ignore them or say we should not trust the numbers, take them with a grain of salt, "I think this is way worse, it's going to get way worse" and so on. It's like there is this thirst for disaster or some global dr…

Agreed. I think we all know at this point that the numbers are not perfect, and that's OK. Also we all need to recognize the hysteria that seems to be ratcheting way up this week.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#174

Post by mr-ron »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #163
toptal wrote: post #87

So it’s just a coincidence that Dr. Li Wenliang, who was 34, died and he only had a 0.2% chance of dying? I find this too much of a coincidence. There is no way these numbers can be correct.

There's reporting bias. Would you have heard of him if he had survived?

He was in the news well before he died:

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001359040/police-ar...

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#175

Post by DataGata »

GhostVII wrote: post #116
moultano wrote: post #13

This is the email I sent my team last night. We should consider working from home. You may all have seen the news by now. A patient was just diagnosed with COVID-19 at UC Davis after having no known contact with anyone travelling. Importantly, they were diagnosed after being intubated already for 7 days. It is suspected that this is the first known case of public transmission of the virus in the US. From what we know…

Seems like a pretty strong overreaction. The flu leads to about half a million hospitalizations in the US each year, while COVID-19 has lead to dozens. So your team is thousands of times more likely to transmit the flu then COVID-19 - even if COVID-19 is 50x more dangerous, it is far more likely that your team will cause hospitalizations due to the flu. I don't see why anyone should be taking precautions for COVID-19…

Why do people who bring up the flu not seem to understand that if your company is big and your office is white collar that everybody there pretty much already has the flu shot if they're not a dumbass?

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#176

Post by jmiskovic »

zerkten wrote: post #70
sciinfo wrote: post #52

There seems to be many cases of young patients dying in Iran. Either because there are way more cases than being officially reported or (hopefully not) the virus has mutated to affect the young more, or both. The first hypothesis is likely based on the number of infections found in international travellers who went to Iran. We still cannot rule out the second hypothesis though. A 23-year-old woman soccer player: http…

> There seems to be many cases of young patients dying in Iran. Either because there are way more cases than being officially reported or (hopefully not) the virus has mutated to affect the young more, or both. They could easily have had an undiagnosed underlying condition that made them more susceptible to complications. This is to be expected in places like Iran with severe limitations in their healthcare system. I…

Is it just me or is your comment really insensitive? I would think that about half of world has no better healthcare system than Iran.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#177

Post by zaroth »

scarmig wrote: post #142
Tenoke wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/infected) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. On the other hand, there are also a lot of infected who only have a mild version and are never checked and recorded, which swings it in the other direction. Edit: Seems like the parent post later edited their post to mention the above.

In the case of the Diamond Princess, all infections, mild to severe, have been identified. Out of ~800 infected, 4 have died, which suggests that with the best case scenario the mortality rate is 0.5%. This also should be read with the context that cruise ship passengers tend to be older. Also, that number will climb a bit. The biggest risk isn't the bare mortality rate when properly treated, but the actual mortality…

I think it’s also safe to assume that all ~3,700 people onboard were exposed to the virus, so it gives an idea of the exposure vs infection rate as well.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#178

Post by kube-system »

LandR wrote: post #39
eecc wrote: post #35

People, if you haven’t yet go get the seasonal flu vaccine. Reduces burden on strained ops and your risk of getting double tapped

Isn't this something you can only get if you are in at risk group? I can't go to my doctor and just get a flu shot, I don't think?

In the US, authorities recommend that everyone older than 6 months get the flu shot, and you can get it nearly anywhere with a pharmacy. I got mine at the grocery store.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#179

Post by 99052882514569 »

mns wrote: post #141
nik_s wrote: post #57

The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…

I do have one question and I'm asking this seriously, not to start an argument or to attack someone. I also saw this here in a lot of the posts about covid-19. We have numbers, but every time people tend to ignore them or say we should not trust the numbers, take them with a grain of salt, "I think this is way worse, it's going to get way worse" and so on. It's like there is this thirst for disaster or some global dr…

I don't think that calling the numbers unreliable implies incompetence or even worse, malice, on the part of the reporting country. It's simply difficult as shit to come up with reliable stats on something very new in the middle of an outbreak. Think of how many people aren't even noticing that they have the virus, and thus will never be counted as infected. This is just as true in Milan or California as it is in Wuhan. All numbers are noisy and subject to substantial revision. It is, however, quite clear that this virus is not as serious as SARS or especially MERS. It can still kill millions if it infects hundreds of millions though, so that's just a comment on whether you, individually, should worry about getting it.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#180

Post by icegreentea2 »

GhostVII wrote: post #116
moultano wrote: post #13

This is the email I sent my team last night. We should consider working from home. You may all have seen the news by now. A patient was just diagnosed with COVID-19 at UC Davis after having no known contact with anyone travelling. Importantly, they were diagnosed after being intubated already for 7 days. It is suspected that this is the first known case of public transmission of the virus in the US. From what we know…

Seems like a pretty strong overreaction. The flu leads to about half a million hospitalizations in the US each year, while COVID-19 has lead to dozens. So your team is thousands of times more likely to transmit the flu then COVID-19 - even if COVID-19 is 50x more dangerous, it is far more likely that your team will cause hospitalizations due to the flu. I don't see why anyone should be taking precautions for COVID-19…

There are a few reasons why this may not be a strong overreaction. The first is that since flu is always with us, we normalize the risk. This doesn't mean that our chosen countermeasures and decisions for flu is actually correct or optimal, just that we're for the moment comfortable with them. Just like how lots of young people don't get the flu vaccine until after they actually get the flu.

So just because their current flu countermeasures don't include the measures proposed doesn't mean that it's not rational to consider them. Their prior actions could actually be irrational, and the context shift is just allowing them to adjust their perception and actions.

The second is that since WFH is an preventative measure designed to minimize the probability of COVID-19 reaching flu transmission rates, you can't simply say that "the current risk is low", you have to try to consider the likelyhood of risk significantly increasing without action.

Let's be real here, even if COVID-19 was literally exactly a different flu, it would be still be a problem and we should be planning for it carefully. North American hospitals are cost conscious and therefore typically only have enough resources to just about cover a normal flu season spike. Doubling (say nothing about 10x) the amount the hospitalizations required would be an incredible stress to the system.

Post reply on HN