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

121–127 of 127 posts

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

#121

Post by bart_spoon »

Medicalidiot wrote: post #113
bart_spoon wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’…

As stated elsewhere, I lacked tact towards the person who I was condescending towards and it was not my intention. But my behavior towards someone else does not mean it's ok for you to now treat me poorly. I'm not going to argue with you any more because this doesn't seem worth it, and justifying bad behavior is just not something I'm into. This looks like SARS 2002-2004's cousin. The virus is actually called SARS-Co…

> Do whatever you want, bud, because your actions will only get the people around you killed.

So you say you lacked tact, I shouldn't treat you poorly, and then a paragraph later say this?

> The transmission rate is astounding, the fatality rate is also looking like SARS 2002-2004

The fatality rate is not looking like SARS 2002-2004, its looking far less. Again, you are spouting incorrect information.

> this is something you should take very seriously

I am taking it seriously. Part of taking something seriously is relying on accurate information.

> And no, I don't need a medical degree to recognize a pattern

And what pattern is this that you are recognizing? So far you've only cited dated medical papers and interpreted them incorrectly.

> I just want to say it's making me laugh to myself how ignorant people are as to what my education actually entails and the nuances between every step of the medical education hierarchy. Like how in a few months I'm going to magically know what I'm doing because I have a piece of paper.

You are right, at this point it seems safe to assume that even if you receive your medical degree you won't actually know what you are doing. Pity for your future patients.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #117
sciinfo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no exact figure at the moment) to 10-20% like earlier in Wuhan Those percentages come from different samples altogether and cannot be compared. 10-20% is heavily biased toward people who were admitted before there were even reliable tests for the virus or a recognition that it's novel and serious. Now you're comparing that to 0.5-4% which includes a bunch (though by no means cl…

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by sciinfo »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #117
sciinfo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no exact figure at the moment) to 10-20% like earlier in Wuhan Those percentages come from different samples altogether and cannot be compared. 10-20% is heavily biased toward people who were admitted before there were even reliable tests for the virus or a recognition that it's novel and serious. Now you're comparing that to 0.5-4% which includes a bunch (though by no means cl…

Yes, I think I might have mixed up stats of different kinds (Posting too late at night, sorry).

However, the point stands that fatality rates will likely go up a lot if medical resources are overwhelmed. Long-term lung damage is also another risk for younger people and its rate will also go up.

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

#124

Post by mercer »

NullPrefix wrote: post #118
war1025 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> Soldier on > v. To continue or persist, despite adversity or difficulty. Commando would better fit the description of "Sabotaging the team, product and costumers"

Could you BE any more pointlessly pedantic?

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

#125

Post by mercer »

tyfon wrote: post #37
nkozyra wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if one was this cynical, do you not think a novel (not influenza) virus with an unusually high mortality rate spreading internationally is worthy of news coverage? The media didn't name this thing, nor SARS, nor avian bird flu.

SARS (the syndrome) is actually caused by the corona virus so it's not really new. But I see my karma won't be healthy in this discussion so I guess I'll shut up :p

Please do.

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

#126

Post by nkozyra »

tyfon wrote: post #37
nkozyra wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if one was this cynical, do you not think a novel (not influenza) virus with an unusually high mortality rate spreading internationally is worthy of news coverage? The media didn't name this thing, nor SARS, nor avian bird flu.

SARS (the syndrome) is actually caused by the corona virus so it's not really new. But I see my karma won't be healthy in this discussion so I guess I'll shut up :p

It's caused by different strain, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

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

#127

Post by oceanplexian »

bart_spoon wrote: post #80
praptak wrote: post #41

Humans are bad at gauging low probabilities. I for one cannot wrap my head around the actual badness of an event that has 2 percent chance of getting me killed. Taking the "average" approach, i.e. 2% loss of my expected remaining life time doesn't seem very good. # Yup, I know getting the virus is more than just a chance to die - you possibly infect others, get quarantined, etc.

Part of the reason humans are bad with probability is because they are bad at conditional probabilities. There is likely much less than a 2% chance you die from this. First that is assuming you will catch this disease. Even the most gloom and doom projections I’ve seen are saying that this virus will infect 40-70% of the worlds population. Which means the chance that you catch this and die from it is more like 1-1.5%…

> So now it’s more like .3-.7% chance you actually catch this and die

Speaking of people being bad at probabilities..

A .3-.7 chance of death is still VERY dangerous. Your odds of dying of a car crash in any given year is 1 in 10,000. Your odds of dying from Coronavirus is 1 in 333 (at your best estimate). Yes this is absolutely serious at a societal level, and yes, you can die from this.

Post reply on HN