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

I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

stamfordadvocate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#101

Post by Medicalidiot »

bart_spoon wrote: post #97
Medicalidiot wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the most common complications that leads to death. The clinical presentation is very different here. And yes, my source backs everything I said. Also, the Lancet is one of the most respected medical journals in the world. I'm giving your primary literature that I took from the current medical guidelines from what's published. I'm a medical student and, although not a board certified physician, I'm going to…

If you are going to flex your (yet unearned) credentials, I will flex mine. I’m a statistician, and your source is a perfect example of an egregious statistical fallacy: sampling bias. Yes, it says 30% had ARDS, but it was based on the first 40 cases, all of whom were identified before January 2nd . It’s literally just a sample of the the cases that were so severe that they popped up on the radar before people were e…

Let me ask you a question: what is the intention of responding to me in a condescending way? What do you get out of it? My intention right now is for people not to down play how serious this will become and that this isn't just the flu.

This is the only data we have right now and it's saying this is really bad. You can talk selection bias here, faulty statistics, etc. but right now the death rate is 8% (deaths/(deaths+resolved) not deaths/total infections) and the list of complications is the check list for an intense ICU (no pun intended) visit.

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#102

Post by dr_dshiv »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #82
dr_dshiv wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, my son had a really bad cold that resulted in an infected lymph node and a course of antibiotics. They never ran a test for covid-19. So, how do we know that we have anywhere close to the right number of total patients? Do you have any citations for these high numbers? Some statistical skepticism is important in matters of public concern.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.18.20024539v... This is a paper that looks at 50k Chinese patients and 18.1% of them are considered "severe cases", which China has been using to mean needing special care in the hospital. And based on a WHO official's statements they found no evidence that there was a big number of unreported cases in China. https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/25/new-data-from-china-butt.…

From your second link:

"“What [the data] support is that sure, there may be a few asymptomatic cases … but there’s probably not huge transmission beyond what you can actually see clinically,” Aylward said.

The claim was quickly challenged by an infectious diseases expert who serves on a committee that advises the WHO’s health emergencies program."

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#103

Post by Medicalidiot »

haunter wrote: post #88
Medicalidiot wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the most common complications that leads to death. The clinical presentation is very different here. And yes, my source backs everything I said. Also, the Lancet is one of the most respected medical journals in the world. I'm giving your primary literature that I took from the current medical guidelines from what's published. I'm a medical student and, although not a board certified physician, I'm going to…

What's with this dismissive attitude?

I think if I had said this in person it would have sounded a lot less dismissive, but the way I typed it up came off as mean which was not my intention.

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#104

Post by Medicalidiot »

leereeves wrote: post #100
Medicalidiot wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me try to rephrase what you're saying just to understand where you're coming from. "these are cool numbers, but what's the chance that the average person is going to actually have any of these complications?". I don't have any cogent numbers on that, but the current deaths/(deaths+resolved) percentage is 8%.

> what's the chance that the average person is going to actually have any of these complications? Yes, that's the question we'd all like to have the answer to. But we don't know how many mild or asymptomatic cases have resolved, so the deaths/(deaths+resolved) calculation is a known divided by an unknown.

I didn't even think of how many people are asymptomatic carriers when I said that number. More data, like all science, is the answer here.

Honestly, someone I highly respect who is high up on the medicine food chain is very concerned that a lot of people are going to die and that's been making me very concerned.

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#105

Post by 101404 »

Ill_ban_myself wrote: post #76
101404 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "social repercussions"?

Many people at offices in the US look at taking sick time as lazy and bosses will pressure you to come in anyway

You mean, normal employees? That's weird.

And the "bosses" seem especially dumb. If one person is sick and contagious, you risk to get your entire team sick and then have to shut down operations.

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#106

Post by war1025 »

NullPrefix wrote: post #72
mrspeaker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a time where it would be preferable to live somewhere that has good free/cheap health and social systems: if you're sick, you stay home and there are limited social or financial repercussions. So many people where I am will just "soldier on" because they have no choice.

>So many people where I am will just "soldier on" because they have no choice. Soldiers, usually, don't go alone into the enemy territory. Commandos do. They go alone and fight against everyone.

"Soldier on" is a semi-commonly used phrase that I suspect most (at least Americans) reading the comment knew exactly what they meant.

Unsure if you were just unfamiliar with the phrase or wanted to point out something you felt was inaccurate about it.

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#107

Post by bart_spoon »

Medicalidiot wrote: post #101
bart_spoon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going to flex your (yet unearned) credentials, I will flex mine. I’m a statistician, and your source is a perfect example of an egregious statistical fallacy: sampling bias. Yes, it says 30% had ARDS, but it was based on the first 40 cases, all of whom were identified before January 2nd . It’s literally just a sample of the the cases that were so severe that they popped up on the radar before people were e…

Let me ask you a question: what is the intention of responding to me in a condescending way? What do you get out of it? My intention right now is for people not to down play how serious this will become and that this isn't just the flu. This is the only data we have right now and it's saying this is really bad. You can talk selection bias here, faulty statistics, etc. but right now the death rate is 8% (deaths/(death…

I wasn’t condescending until you were. I initially questioned your claims, and you responded by asserting that you were correct and I was not because you are a medical student and I am not. It had nothing to do with the validity of what I was saying, it was an appeal to your own authority. If you do not wish to make an argument personal, then you should refrain from using your person as an argument.

Secondly, it isn’t the only data we have. The data in the sources you linked are dated. There has been weeks worth of data and tens of thousands of cases since January 2nd, so to rely on papers focusing on 40 cases from 2 months ago is inexplicable. And even our current estimates of the death rate are still very likely over estimated for the same reason: sampling bias. It appears that it takes longer to recover than it does to die from this disease, and so deaths / (deaths+resolved) will be biased high. It also fails to consider that mild cases are less likely to be detected and therefore won’t be included in the calculation, further skewing the death rate higher. And lastly, the overwhelming number of cases so far have been from a single province in China, overwhelming their capacity. Outside of that province, the death rate is far less. That isn’t to say that other provinces/nations can’t also become overwhelmed, but there is something to be said for the fact that having several months of preparation and notice will improve readiness remarkably compared to Hubei province, which only was able to react to the outbreak after it had been occurring for several weeks.

This is all to say that, yes the virus is concerning, and yes people should prepare themselves, but it is also incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to spread immaculate and misleading information based on long outdated studies and statistical malpractice, and then do further damage by stamping it with unearned medical expertise.

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#108

Post by BrandoElFollito »

Medicalidiot wrote: post #101
bart_spoon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going to flex your (yet unearned) credentials, I will flex mine. I’m a statistician, and your source is a perfect example of an egregious statistical fallacy: sampling bias. Yes, it says 30% had ARDS, but it was based on the first 40 cases, all of whom were identified before January 2nd . It’s literally just a sample of the the cases that were so severe that they popped up on the radar before people were e…

Let me ask you a question: what is the intention of responding to me in a condescending way? What do you get out of it? My intention right now is for people not to down play how serious this will become and that this isn't just the flu. This is the only data we have right now and it's saying this is really bad. You can talk selection bias here, faulty statistics, etc. but right now the death rate is 8% (deaths/(death…

I am an ex physicist and how statistics are handled by people who do not have the right expertise is exhausting.

He (or she, I do not know) wanted to show you that numbers you base your conclusion on must be carefully vetted.

I was once a reviewer of a PhD thesis in biology. The statistics part was dreadful, from someone who was otherwise a very serious student. She just would not know how to properly handle her data. After a review of the methodology the conclusions were different.

So do not get upset, being challenged by someone knowledgeable is fantastic and does not happen often.

Good luck with your degree.

Re: I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad

#109

Post by onetimemanytime »

sciinfo wrote: post #77
Medicalidiot wrote: post #22

This is dangerous. Take every precaution you can not to get infected for as long as you can and that you don't infect anyone else. This is not the flu. The flu makes you more susceptible to a material pneumonia and that's how it kills. SARS-CoV-2 is NOT the flu. COVID-19 is the disease, by the way. Here is the list of complications: -ARDS in 29% (Acute respiratory distress disease, this needs mechanical ventilation t…

If most people don't care to prevent infection, the hospitals and medical resources will soon be overwhelmed, the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no exact figure at the moment) to 10-20% like earlier in Wuhan. When viral load in the environment becomes sufficiently high, some young people will be taken away by it too, as in the case of several Wuhan doctors who sacrificed themselves under that circumstance. Among…

Very true, the low end stats are for regions with few infections. If say, 1 million ppl get in NYC, expect a lot higher rates, as the health system cannot do much with that many people.
Post reply on HN