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

Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 544 posts

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#401

Post by gvjddbnvdrbv »

iso947 wrote: post #350
gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The know that presymtomatic people are highly contagious.

WHO disagree with you, so citation needed.

Do you mind linking to the WHO source? Last I checked they said presymptomatic people are contagious.

It's why track and trace is so important and difficult. People are contagious after 3 days but first show symptoms clustered around 5 days. So we need to contact trace their last week or so. A lot of western governments have been unable to do this so they have decided to hope presymptomatic people are not contagious and just ask symptomatic people to self isolate.

Another factor is what is symptomatic. I had a weird tightness in my chest 2 days before my fever and a tickle in my throat 1 day before. Breathing issues started 4 days after fever. I had no clue the tightness was covid...

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#402

Post by gvjddbnvdrbv »

jmckib wrote: post #305
gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The know that presymtomatic people are highly contagious.

I don't doubt it, but where did you hear that?

The WHO back in February. Maybe the advice has changed...

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#403

Post by royroyroys »

mrpopo wrote: post #270
maxerickson wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is in line with Iceland finding that 50% of people they tested were asymptomatic. That's imprecisely stated. 50% of the people that tested positive were asymptomatic. Most of the people tested, both in Iceland and on the Theodore Roosevelt, have tested negative. Esper's comments are ridiculous. It's been clear for months that there is some significant degree of asymptomatic spread, it's not new information.

Yes. Extensive testing was done in Korea and Taiwan in February and the same results came out. With extensive contact tracing, it became clear that asymptomatic cases played a big role in spreading the virus. This data is not different or new, not even better.

Patient 31 was very symptomatic and was the cause of first large outbreak

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#404

Post by de_watcher »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #113
feral wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netherlands has 3.3k deaths vs 29k confirmed cases, which would give a CFR of ~10% I.e. the Netherlands aren't testing much. A 10x reduction there brings it back to the CFR range we see in countries with bigger testing programs. I'm not a specialist but have been following this for a while, and have yet to see evidence the IFR for this isnt around 0.5-1% (assuming decent healthcare). That's what we saw in the Dia…

My current bet is younger healthy people are more likely to be asymptomatic. And older people much less so. Theodore Roosevelt with likely a young population, most are asymptomatic. Diamond Princess much older population most are symptomatic.

"Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free"

Be fit. Be young.

We've solved it boys, hit the showers.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#405

Post by Tepix »

yomly wrote: post #345
system2 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 0.37% is true, why are the hospitals in this shape?

Imagine all 65M people in the UK caught the virus then a 10,000 case fatality number would give a rate of 0.015%. The rate itself has no time element so it tells you nothing about the number of people in hospital right now and hence isn't very illustrative of how hospitals can be swamped by this disease. More interestingly (for me at least) is that the mortality rate is dependent on a patient's access to a ventilator…

> This means if you caught the virus early in the spread of the pandemic your odds of surviving are substantially higher than if you caught it right at the peak of infection.

I'd say your odds are best if you catch it some time after the peak. The hospital will be better prepared to prevent infections there and have more experience on how to treat patients best. There may even be some treatment that prevents the worst symptoms.

Also, if you (egoistically) try to get Covid-19 early, you may inadvertently infect others against their will.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#406

Post by cm2187 »

system2 wrote: post #322
manfredo wrote: post #103

Random testing in Germany has also revealed higher than expected rates of people with antibodies. Their IFR (infected fatality rate) was 2% overall based on non-random testing. Random testing has yielded an IFR or 0.37%. This does not increase the risk. These tests only test people who had coronavirus. The larger this portion, the more herd immunity there is in the population. It implies that there were a larger than…

If 0.37% is true, why are the hospitals in this shape?

The problem is the high number of infections. The virus is having a run in a population that has no immunity, unlike a flu. So it is spreading fast and in large numbers. A tiny hospitalisation rate multiplied by a very large number of people infected may be more than the hospital capacity.

Which is why both of these statement can be true at the same time: this thing is no more dangerous than the flu to an individual if you get it, but it can kill many more people than the flu because the population doesn't have any immunity and many more people will get it.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#407

Post by rocqua »

simonh wrote: post #395
rocqua wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dutch testing policy is acknowledged by national bodies to not be representative at all. Moreover, so is our death rate. We have a lot of hidden deaths of elderly people who decide not to go through the trauma of an ICU stint and instead decide to die at home. I don't recall exact numbers but think it was estimated the true death toll is about 50 to 100 percent higher.

Pneumonia patients in hospital have their blood oxygen continuously monitored, with alarms if it goes too low because the symptoms of oxygen starvation are very hard to spot even by a trained nurse, but can be rapidly fatal. The most common cause of death is heart attack because the heart isn't getting enough oxygen. So these people dying at home probably think they're not at serious risk and don't want to take up a…

These are also (usually older) patients who decide they don't want to go on a ventilator because they feel their quality of life, if they were to survive, is so low as to not matter.

These are decisions made in concert with the 'huisarts' (General Practitioner).

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#408

Post by cm2187 »

yomly wrote: post #345
system2 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 0.37% is true, why are the hospitals in this shape?

Imagine all 65M people in the UK caught the virus then a 10,000 case fatality number would give a rate of 0.015%. The rate itself has no time element so it tells you nothing about the number of people in hospital right now and hence isn't very illustrative of how hospitals can be swamped by this disease. More interestingly (for me at least) is that the mortality rate is dependent on a patient's access to a ventilator…

Though my understanding is that the survival rate of a covid19 patient once he requires a ventilator is around 50%. If that's true, at worst, if we ran out of ventilators, the death rate would double. That's bad and we should avoid it but the doubling of a tiny number will still be a small number.

Which is why I am still confused by the ratio of 1:10 that the White House has shown between the death toll under lockdown vs no lockdown.

For the reason above, I would only expect the death rate to double. No lockdown means a lot more people get infected faster. But lockdown still requires to build herd immunity, we are only slowing it down. So the same number of people will get infected ultimately. So either they implied that the lockdown would be permanent until we get a vaccine (at best 2021 Q1), or it completely disregarded what happened after the initial few weeks of lockdown and then the numbers were at best grossly misleading.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#409

Post by Tepix »

rumanator wrote: post #364
amiantos wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2% number is 2% of people who have bad symptoms die. 0.37% is 0.37% of all people who get it, including those who have mild/no symptoms die. It simply means a much larger percentage of people get it, not that any less people are dying. I’d say there’s a good chance that many of us have gotten it, and spread it, without knowing it.

> The 2% number is 2% of people who have bad symptoms die. I don't believe that's true. In countries such as Spain, right now there are about 80k confirmed recoveries and 19k deaths among a universe of 182k confirmed cases.

We don't know. There are probably a lot of cases in Spain that are flying under the radar because people without symptoms don't get tested often.
Post reply on HN