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

381–390 of 438 posts

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

#381

Post by CydeWeys »

andrepd wrote: post #352
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is in the healthcare capacities. I live in a country with ~2mio people. If you're patient zero here, you get a comfy private room, your own bed, 5 doctors, 10 nurses, whole research teams, respirators, priority with all the tests, examinations, etc. Same for patient 1, 2, 3. If 200k people get infected (10% of population), and only 10% of those need extra medical care, that's 20.000 people. We don't have…

Yes, you are right, if 10% of people in your country get infected it would be an absolute calamity... because it is already such an extreme scenario. Does it even have a precedent in modern times?

The 1918 flu pandemic.

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

#382

Post by gentleman11 »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #84
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…

According to Johns Hopkins data Feb 27, 2020 [0], Iran would come to: Deaths: 26 Recovered: 49 (26 / (26 + 49)) = 34.7% [0] https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...

We also have that Iran does not have the health care system to even provide proper equipment for their health staff. This is a case of massive under reporting, but unfortunately that means they are not containing it and do not even know the extent of their problem. That is the teal worry with Iran, not some super deadly variant

The diamond princess saw almost 100% exposure and only 0.5% of people died who got infected. Depending if you choose that stat, or the 2% WHO star, that suggests 15-100x more cases are in Iran than their lousy health system realizes.

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

#383

Post by baxtr »

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…

You assume recovered data is correct? Maybe it takes longer to be counted as recovered than it takes on average to die. This could change the rate

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

#384

Post by yogthos »

swader999 wrote: post #154
yogthos wrote: post #150

Imagine if people would get as excited about actual problems like global warming and the unfolding mass extinction as they do about a new mild flu.

Exponential vs logistic growth. This is far more of a threat.

This virus is not a threat to long term survival of the human species by any stretch of imagination. Meanwhile the collapse of our biosphere is an existential threat. What's more, we know that we have a very short window to make any meaningful changes to prevent the worst outcomes including our extinction. Yet, we're still completely reliant on fossil fuels, and the industry is actually being subsidized right now.

Thinking that this is more of a threat because it's happening now as opposed to a few decades in the future is sheer idiocy.

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

#385

Post by JshWright »

ajross wrote: post #300
JshWright wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incomplete data, that is being combined in ways to give certain impressions, that aren't necessarily backed by actual medical science.

Gah, the data in this article is literally medical science . It's reporting on a paper from the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, which it even links you to directly. Now, maybe this science is wrong. If you want to make that argument, though, you need to make it with evidence. You don't get to dismiss it like that without doing your own science.

The way the data is sliced and diced is not necessarily meaningful. Looks at the mortality rates based on those simple categories can paint a misleading picture.

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

#386

Post by yogthos »

dharma1 wrote: post #166
yogthos wrote: post #150

Imagine if people would get as excited about actual problems like global warming and the unfolding mass extinction as they do about a new mild flu.

Timescale, and immediacy of the threat. Humans are not good at long timescale thinking. BTW I don't think these things need to be mutually exclusive. We should take action against all kinds of threats

Obviously we should take action against all kinds of threats. My point is that the reaction to this virus is completely disproportional to the level of the threat. Meanwhile, lack of reaction to an actual existential threat we're facing in the near future is utterly terrifying.

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

#387

Post by stewbrew »

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…

How would you know the number of infected people? You know the number of infected people with symptoms that were severe enough to get tested.

For the same reason: How would you know the number of people who have recovered? You know the number of people who were observed and then recovered.

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

#388

Post by jacquesm »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #254
mns wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is in the healthcare capacities. I live in a country with ~2mio people. If you're patient zero here, you get a comfy private room, your own bed, 5 doctors, 10 nurses, whole research teams, respirators, priority with all the tests, examinations, etc. Same for patient 1, 2, 3. If 200k people get infected (10% of population), and only 10% of those need extra medical care, that's 20.000 people. We don't have…

And that's still ignoring the factor that many of those care workers will get ill themselves compounding the problem significantly.

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

#389

Post by charlieflowers »

hiram112 wrote: post #267
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is in the healthcare capacities. I live in a country with ~2mio people. If you're patient zero here, you get a comfy private room, your own bed, 5 doctors, 10 nurses, whole research teams, respirators, priority with all the tests, examinations, etc. Same for patient 1, 2, 3. If 200k people get infected (10% of population), and only 10% of those need extra medical care, that's 20.000 people. We don't have…

> If you're patient zero here, you get a comfy private room, your own bed, 5 doctors, 10 nurses, whole research teams, respirators, priority with all the tests, examinations, etc. Same for patient 1, 2, 3. I read a similar comment from someone on another forum. If you're certain this will end up a pandemic, with almost everyone eventually catching it, your best move is to catch the virus as soon as possible, ensuring…

Or, hole up and wait for a vaccine.

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

#390

Post by WaltPurvis »

partiallypro wrote: post #335
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…

The survival rate is also probably thrown off though because some countries have better trained health professionals. No one in the US (that made it to US care) has died as of yet. In other countries without advanced facilities available, the rates are much higher. If the disease hits Africa and more of the ME, the rate will go up. While in the US, and richer countries like Germany, etc the rate will probably be low.

There's some validity to that, but a lot depends on how widespread the disease becomes. There are about 100,000 ICU beds in the US, and they can't all be allocated to coronavirus patients. Not having access to a ventilator would be pretty much equivalent to a death sentence for some patients. There are <100,000 ventilators in the US, and they're not evenly distributed (some areas and hospitals have very few). It wouldn't take much of a pandemic to exhaust our supply of ICU beds and other critical-care resources.
Post reply on HN