The point is that this disease only seriously affects certain people. Those people should stay home. If the rest of us catch it it's not a big deal
Coronavirus Thread: Worldwide Pandemic
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
The point is that this disease only seriously affects certain people. Those people should stay home. If the rest of us catch it it's not a big deal
You don't know who it effects breh. Plenty of younger people in France and Italy are in ICU.
Your logic doesn't even make sense. Do you want to be sick?
I'm supposed to believe that when everyone around him for the past week has tested positive 
He's fukking LYING!!!
The region 219
Pro
This is old, a retarded take and written by a pediatrician. Miss me with this bad info.Skip to the content
Coronavirus DiariesJoe BidenHot Seats1918PrisonWolf HallNews Quiz
News & PoliticsCultureTechnologyBusinessHuman Interest Search
FOLLOW US
RegisterSign in
NOT SO EASILY BOUND BY TIME
MEDICAL EXAMINER
COVID-19 Isn’t As Deadly As We Think
Don’t hoard masks and food. Figure out how to help seniors and the immunosuppressed stay healthy.
By JEREMY SAMUEL FAUST
MARCH 04, 202011:35 AM
A man arrives in an ambulance at a pre-triage medical tent in front of the hospital in Cremona, Italy, on Tuesday.
Miguel Medina/Getty Images
There are many compelling reasons to conclude that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is not nearly as deadly as is currently feared. But COVID-19 panic has set in nonetheless. You can’t find hand sanitizer in stores, and N95 face masks are being sold online for exorbitant prices, never mind that neither is the best way to protect against the virus (yes, just wash your hands). The public is behaving as if this epidemic is the next Spanish flu, which is frankly understandable given that initial reports have staked COVID-19 mortality at about 2–3 percent, quite similar to the 1918 pandemic that killed tens of millions of people.
ADVERTISING
Ads by Teads
Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold. The true case fatality rate, known as CFR, of this virus is likely to be far lower than current reports suggest. Even some lower estimates, such as the 1 percent death rate recently mentioned by the directors of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely substantially overstate the case.
Coronavirus[/paste:font]
We shouldn’t be surprised that the numbers are inflated. In past epidemics, initial CFRs were floridly exaggerated. For example, in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic some early estimates were 10 times greater than the eventual CFR, of 1.28 percent. Epidemiologists think and quibble in terms of numerators and denominators—which patients were included when fractional estimates were calculated, which weren’t, were those decisions valid—and the results change a lot as a result. We are already seeing this. In the early days of the crisis in Wuhan, China, the CFR was more than 4 percent. As the virus spread to other parts of Hubei, the number fell to 2 percent. As it spread through China, the reported CFR dropped further, to 0.2 to 0.4 percent. As testing begins to include more asymptomatic and mild cases, more realistic numbers are starting to surface. New reports from the World Health Organization that estimate the global death rate of COVID-19 to be 3.4 percent, higher than previously believed, is not cause for further panic. This number is subject to the same usual forces that we would normally expect to inaccurately embellish death rate statistics early in an epidemic. If anything, it underscores just how early we are in this.
- France and Spain Implement Dramatic Quarantine Measures
- Judge Blocks Trump Rule That Would Have Kicked 700,000 Off Food Stamps During a Pandemic
- Playing Scrabble in a Pandemic
- Trump Says He Was Tested for the Coronavirus
But the most straightforward and compelling evidence that the true case fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is well under 1 percent comes not from statistical trends and methodological massage, but from data from the Diamond Princess cruise outbreak and subsequent quarantine off the coast of Japan.
A quarantined boat is an ideal—if unfortunate—natural laboratory to study a virus. Many variables normally impossible to control are controlled. We know that all but one patient boarded the boat without the virus. We know that the other passengers were healthy enough to travel. We know their whereabouts and exposures. While the numbers coming out of China are scary, we don’t know how many of those patients were already ill for other reasons. How many were already hospitalized for another life-threatening illness and then caught the virus? How many were completely healthy, caught the virus, and developed a critical illness? In the real world, we just don’t know.
Here’s the problem with looking at mortality numbers in a general setting: In China, 9 million people die per year, which comes out to 25,000 people every single day, or around 1.5 million people over the past two months alone. A significant fraction of these deaths results from diseases like emphysema/COPD, lower respiratory infections, and cancers of the lung and airway whose symptoms are clinically indistinguishable from the nonspecific symptoms seen in severe COVID-19 cases. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, the death rate from COVID-19 in China spiked precisely among the same age groups in which these chronic diseases first become common. During the peak of the outbreak in China in January and early February, around 25 patients per day were dying with SARS-CoV-2. Most were older patients in whom the chronic diseases listed above are prevalent. Most deaths occurred in Hubei province, an area in which lung cancer and emphysema/COPD are significantly higher than national averages in China, a country where half of all men smoke. How were doctors supposed to sort out which of those 25 out of 25,000 daily deaths were solely due to coronavirus, and which were more complicated? What we need to know is how many excess deaths this virus causes.
ADVERTISING
Ads by Teads
This is where the Diamond Princess data provides important insight. Of the 3,711 people on board, at least 705 have tested positive for the virus (which, considering the confines, conditions, and how contagious this virus appears to be, is surprisingly low). Of those, more than half are asymptomatic, while very few asymptomatic people were detected in China. This alone suggests a halving of the virus’s true fatality rate.
On the Diamond Princess, six deaths have occurred among the passengers, constituting a case fatality rate of 0.85 percent. Unlike the data from China and elsewhere, where sorting out why a patient died is extremely difficult, we can assume that these are excess fatalities—they wouldn’t have occurred but for SARS-CoV-2. The most important insight is that all six fatalities occurred in patients who are more than 70 years old. Not a single Diamond Princess patient under age 70 has died. If the numbers from reports out of China had held, the expected number of deaths in those under 70 should have been around four.
The data from the Diamond Princess suggest an eightfold lower mortality amongst patients older than 70 and threefold lower mortality in patients over 80 compared to what was reported in China initially. But even those numbers, 1.1 percent and 4.9 percent respectively, are concerning. But there’s another thing that’s worth remembering: These patients were likely exposed repeatedly to concentrated viral loads (which can cause worse illness). Some treatments were delayed. So even the lower CFR found on the Diamond Princess could have been even lower, with proper protocols. It’s also worth noting that while cruise passengers can be assumed to be healthy enough to travel, they actually tend to reflect the general population, and many patients with chronic illnesses go on cruises. So, the numbers from this ship may be reasonable estimates.
This all suggests that COVID-19 is a relatively benign disease for most young people, and a potentially devastating one for the old and chronically ill, albeit not nearly as risky as reported. Given the low mortality rate among younger patients with coronavirus—zero in children 10 or younger among hundreds of cases in China, and 0.2-0.4 percent in most healthy nongeriatric adults (and this is still before accounting for what is likely to be a high number of undetected asymptomatic cases)—we need to divert our focus away from worrying about preventing systemic spread among healthy people—which is likely either inevitable, or out of our control—and commit most if not all of our resources toward protecting those truly at risk of developing critical illness and even death: everyone over 70, and people who are already at higher risk from this kind of virus.
This still largely comes down to hygiene and isolation. But in particular, we need to focus on the right people and the right places. Nursing homes, not schools. Hospitals, not planes. We need to up the hygienic and isolation ante primarily around the subset of people who can’t simply contract SARS-CoV-2 and ride it out the way healthy people should be able to.
Yes, this disease is real. And, yes, there truly do appear to be vulnerable patients among us, those far more likely to develop critical illness from it. And that relatively small subset, if infected in high numbers, could add up to a tragically high number of fatalities if we fail to adequately protect them.
The good news is that we have huge advantages to leverage: We already know all of this and have learned it remarkably quickly. We know how this virus spreads. We know how long people are contagious. We know who the most vulnerable patients are likely to be, and where they are.
Healthy people who are hoarding food, masks, and hand sanitizer may feel like they are doing the right thing. But, all good intentions aside, these actions probably represent misdirected anxieties. When such efforts are not directly in service of protecting the right people, not only do they miss the point of everything we have learned so far, they may actually unwittingly be squandering what have suddenly become precious and limited resources.
Update, March 4, 2020: This post has been updated to include a new global death rate estimate from WHO.
Trump is negative for coronavirus 
his status as the healthiest human being alive (confirmed by White House doctors) remains intact
no reason not to believe the White House
his status as the healthiest human being alive (confirmed by White House doctors) remains intact
no reason not to believe the White House
look on the bright side: if hes really lying, maybe it will kill him
IknowHe's fukking LYING!!!
Coronavirus live updates: Patton Village officer is unconscious; two new cases linked to Rodeo
Police Officer here in his 40s is in critical condition over this.
Also
Multiple people are who tested positive are linked to the Rodeo, specifically on 2/28. There were nearly 80k people at the rodeo that day.
I'm not leaving the house unless it's to get food (stocked up earlier) or walk my dog.
Police Officer here in his 40s is in critical condition over this.
Also
Multiple people are who tested positive are linked to the Rodeo, specifically on 2/28. There were nearly 80k people at the rodeo that day.
Houston Rodeo canceled; coronavirus patient attended Rodeo cookoff in February
I'm not leaving the house unless it's to get food (stocked up earlier) or walk my dog.
look on the bright side: if hes really lying, maybe it will kill him
I won't lose any sleep if it doesNo i don't want to be sick, but Im also not going to lock myself in an apartment to avoid a mild cold. Do you stay home to avoid the flu?
And yes we do know who this affects, the fatality rate for young people is trivial (and likely overstated due to selection bias)
Coronavirus Age, Sex, Demographics (COVID-19) - Worldometer
He's just looking for a new angle.
First it was just a flu, then it was black people are not affected by it and now it's go mingle with masses because fukk grandma
It's not a mild cold breh.
I'm sitting at home with symptoms myself. I'm 32 in almost perfect health. I know what a cold feels like. This ain't it breh.
I don't stay home to avoid the flu. I stay home if I have the flu. People have it and don't know they have it. People need to stay home.
That man is an Adonis and a saint who has never told a lieTrump is negative for coronavirus
his status as the healthiest human being alive (confirmed by White House doctors) remains intact
no reason not to believe the White House