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

Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

yorkshirecoastradio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#151

Post by blaser-waffle »

tarr11 wrote: post #71
save_ferris wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re also dealing with the fallout of living in a “post-truth” era, where we as a society can no longer agree with basic facts. Yes, it’s exceedingly rare to see a case like this, but what’s not rare is seeing the examples of people not taking this disease seriously, even some public officials. Getting people to cooperate with drastic disease mitigation efforts won’t happen if there’s a probability embedded in that…

When was this “golden age of truth” era that we are now after? There have always been conspiracies, mystics, cults and anti science sentiments. Do you have any evidence to show it’s worse than it ever was?

Right? Does no one remember the era of William Randolph Hearst and "yellow journalism"? Or all of the horrible BS surrounding Fatty Arbuckle?

One of the primary causes of the Spanish-American War was Hearst's newspapers putting outrageous headlines on papers to drive sales.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%8...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#152

Post by beat »

zdragnar wrote: post #136
beat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mortality rate of 2-3% is "very high". And it's not just "very vulnerable populations". I'm 55, in generally good shape, but I have (medically controlled) hypertension. So my odds of dying are like 5%. My daughter is 26, and winds up in the ER once a year or so for asthma. What are her odds? My mother is 78, has had open heart surgery, and is overweight and gets almost no exercise. I'm more or less assuming I will…

The question wasn't "are vulnerable people vulnerable" it was "why is there a focus on whether a person might have had another condition?". The answer potentially changes the extent to which our hospital systems are inadequate to treat patients. Keep in mind that 2-5% is likely way overblown given how little testing has been done. Unless I am misinformed, the Diamond Princess cruise that had been infected and quarant…

If you want to play pedantic with the numbers, you need to be a lot more aggressive with the whys. Italy currently has a 7.2% mortality rate, but... they believe they are undercounting fatalities due to the virus, because the medical system is overwhelmed and many are dying without seeing doctors or being tested/treated.

Needless to say, a collapse of the medical system and an inability to treat those who are sick has a severe negative effect on the survival rate. That's what social distancing is about - reducing the rate of infection so we lower the peaks striking the medical system. If you develop pneumonia and go to a hospital and get put on a ventilator, you could well survive. If you can't get a ventilator because we as a civilization are out of them, well... you'll probably die, either directly from the virus or from opportunistic secondary bacterial infection.

So the numbers may be underestimated as well as overestimated. It's very much a circumstantial question, and when we haven't scaled cases into the millions yet, we haven't seen the worst of what can happen.

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#153

Post by pavon »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #120
pavon wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is trying to counter misconceptions that COVID-19 is harmless to young healthy people based on misinterpretations of guidance that elderly and those with preexisting conditions are most at risk. Just because younger people are at less risk doesn't mean they have no risk. While the numbers have been hard to pin down, early data from China showed that more than 10% of people in their 20s-40s with the disease had cri…

I think I read that statistic differently - that of the critical cases, 10-14% were between 20 to 40. Not a per-capita number. Not a percentage of young people - a percentage of sick people. Folks in that wide age bracket are around 30% of the US total population. The old - 15%?

Statistics have been reported for both directions.

Early US data[1] showed:

* 20% of (COVID-19 patients hospitalized) were age 20-44 years.

* 12% of (COVID-19 patients in ICU) were age 20-44

The same report also tallied result by age group, stating that:

* 14-20% of (COVID-19 patients age 20-44) were hospitalized

* 2-4% of (COVID-19 patients age 20-44) were in ICU

Ranges due to not all data sources reporting hospitalization/ICU status.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#154

Post by magduf »

magduf wrote: post #78
tarr11 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was this “golden age of truth” era that we are now after? There have always been conspiracies, mystics, cults and anti science sentiments. Do you have any evidence to show it’s worse than it ever was?

Several decades ago, it wasn't nearly this bad or widespread. Sure, there's always been conspiracies and anti-science sentiments, but the mass adoption made all that crap much more easily accessible to the masses, so it spread like a disease. Instead of everyone getting their news from Walter Cronkite, now they get it from Alex Jones.

Whoops, I left out a phrase. This should read: "...but the mass adoption of the internet made all that crap much more easily accessible to the masses..."

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#155

Post by viklove »

Afton wrote: post #18
jhayward wrote: post #7

I'm puzzled by the intense focus on whether someone who dies had a pre-existing condition. It's like people want to convict the person for their own death, make it look like they were irresponsible, as a denial mechanism. By blaming the person for succumbing to the virus they can fall in to the US-centric mindset of blaming people for their own disfortune, poverty, illness, accident, lack of whiteness, etc. It's real…

I don't think that's it at all. It's the 'normal' person being concerned whether they are at risk. While lots of people 'know old people' or with pre-existing conditions, many people have youngish parent with already passed grandparents, who have trouble understanding why this is a fuss for them , since they imagine that it'll just be a cold (for them). Cases like this one are 'scary' because it shows that they might…

The implication of "it only affects people with a pre-existing condition, so it's not a big deal" is "it doesn't matter to me if people with pre-existing conditions die."

I'm 25, and at 23 I had my lung collapse (spontaneous pneumothorax) twice, due to nothing but random chance (according to my doctors). Does that mean it doesn't matter if I die from the coronavirus? Should we stop lockdowns and resume economic activity despite the dangers this virus presents to people like me?

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#156

Post by zaroth »

dahart wrote: post #146
zaroth wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotal doesn’t mean a lie. Anecdotal means n=1, or more broadly, trying to extrapolate from a narrow sample to draw a broad conclusion. This meets the exact definition of anecdotal . You’ve moved the goalposts to say that if it kills even one young person then young people generally are at risk. The claim was never that zero young people have died. Just vanishingly few. DR. BIRX (March 23, 2020): "In the mortality…

> Anecdotal means n=1 No, that is incorrect. It has nothing to do with the size of the sample. "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence "Anecdotal" also means data that is not verifiable. In this case, the data is verifiable even if the news spread via Faceb…

As long as your view is that young people are at vanishingly low risk of dying from this disease, and that individual reports of young people dying are essentially irrelevant and a play on emotions, than I suppose we vehemently agree on the facts.

Whether zero people worldwide under 15 have died or 10 people worldwide under 15 have died doesn’t meaningfully change the obvious conclusion, when the number of cases is several hundred thousand.

It seemed like you were saying that one child dying from COVID was relevant because someone claimed zero children died. Anyone claiming literally zero children have died from COVID are uninformed. The fact remains that children almost universally do not die from COVID.

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#157

Post by beepboopbeep »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #97
beepboopbeep wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing the right thing and accurate information can be one in the same.

They can, or they cannot. The media lying about the effectiveness of masks for several weeks was “right” in that it probably allowed hospitals to refresh their stockpiles before mass panic buying set in. But it was a lie nonetheless. Same with the “coronavirus is a virus, Purell is useless because it is antibacterial” meme. The media is burning its credibility in favor of noble lies — but at the end, will it be worth…

Yes, of course it's worth it. The media's credibility isn't a finite resource. It ebbs and flows like everything else in this world. Nothing is as binary as you see it.

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#158

Post by dogma1138 »

Without a proper PM it’s hard to know, when a 20 something footballer died in Italy it was initially without pre-existing conditions then some results came back and they found he had a undiagnosed leukemia.

However even without pre-existing conditions there is still a non-zero chance of complications that could result in a fatality regardless of how low the chances are.

This both means that people shouldn’t be careless but it also doesn’t mean that the news should abuse this to spread irrational fear.

Comments like this:

> "Clinicians who care for adults should be aware that COVID-19 can result in severe disease among persons of all ages," said the report, published on 18 March.

Serve little to no clinical value, clinicians understand very well that there is always a chance; however it is quite clear that currently the likelihood of younger patients to die is still extremely slim compared to the current high risk groups which includes pretty much anyone over 60.

The number of deaths in the 18-24 group specifically is still a rounding error.

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#159

Post by defertoreptar »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #49
sonicggg wrote: post #26

It seems that anecdotal evidence of young people dying of COVID-19 is the trend of the moment. Not sure if it's just cheap clickbait or the goal is to make younger generations to actually care about social distancing. The deal is that we are dealing with the power of large numbers. You can cherry-pick whatever case you want to fit your narrative. It does not mean its relevant information.

If anecdotes like these succeed in making people take the problem seriously, was it still irrelevant information?

It could mean people who would be going give blood or provide essential services at their job refuse to out of irrational fear.

Re: Twenty-one year old with no pre-existing conditions dies from Coronavirus

#160

Post by sjg007 »

klyrs wrote: post #145
derision wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of what I've seen so far seems to suggest it works more like AIDs, where it weakens something (in this case, epithelial cells in the lungs) which allows other opportunistic issues to arise (bacterial pneumonia for example). So rather than dying "from the virus", you die from another underlying issue. Similar to how AIDs doesn't kill you, it just makes it easier for everything else to kill you

We have a choice here: strongly hold onto generalizations derived from early analysis, or keep an open mind about new developments in the rapidly growing data. By all means folks should scrutinize these developments as they arrived, but we should keep Dunning-Kreuger in mind: there's a whole lot we don't know about this virus.

Yep and everyone underestimates the systemic risk.
Post reply on HN