> fatality was highest in persons aged ≥85, ranging from 10% to 27%, followed by 3% to 11% among persons aged 65–84 years, 1% to 3% among persons aged 55-64 years, <1% among persons aged 20–54 years, and no fatalities among persons aged ≤19 years.
The problem with all of these numbers is that they assume sufficient medical care and access to an ICU.
> In contrast, among people 20 to 44, 14% to 21% of 705 cases were admitted to hospitals and 2% to 4% to ICUs; 0.1% to 0.2% died.
If we assume that ICUs are overloaded, how many of the that 2-4% would die?
Not that this doesn't count the people who won't catch the virus because of herd immunity. There may also be some people who are immune, or who defeat the virus quickly enough to not show positive on an RNA test.
That report just sources the same CDC report, but I think it gets some of its conclusions wrong.
It says:
>In contrast, among people 20 to 44, 14% to 21% of 705 cases were admitted to hospitals and 2% to 4% to ICUs; 0.1% to 0.2% died.
But the CDC report indicates that 12% total (of all cases) are known to have been hospitalized, and of that number, 20% were age 20-44. So that would mean that (0.12*.2=) 2.4% of people total were 20-44 and in the hospital. Now 29% of all cases were in that age group, so that would mean for the 20-44 age group there was a (2.4/29=)8.3% chance of hospitalization.
Maybe I misunderstood something there, but I think I'm right.
note that Gregory Rigano is a lawyer with no medical training who has been writing about this with a cryptotrader (James M. Todaro).
Distribution of preprint by google drive remains highly suspect, as does the fact that the nominally illustrious first author communicates by a gmail address despite google scholar listing him as having a normal educational email address https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=n8EF_6kAAAAJ...
That said, i know plenty of intensely brilliant weirdo researchers -- but i'd take this with big grains of salt. and i have no idea why a z-pak is a booster for an antiviral therapy.
How is it “full peer reviewed” when it’s explicitly an early release draft? Just saying it’s peer reviewed when it clearly isn’t sounds the scam alarms. A Covid Forsythia.
The study itself is interesting, I’m sure, to people in the field (though reading about the study is a bit odd. Of their test group they simply remove six from consideration for reasons like “they died”), but is irrelevant to a layman.
We are undoubtedly going to have hundreds of “this is the cure” claims that aren’t the cure. The way this is presented has significant indicators of not being credible.
Google Drive, some guy claiming that something that isn't peer reviewed at all is "full peer reviewed", pimped on Twitter. Is HN this gullible? How is this nonsense at the top?
"A renowned research professor in France has reported successful results from a new treatment for Covid-19, with early tests suggesting it can stop the virus from being contagious in just six days.
Professor Raoult is an infectious diseases specialist and head of the IHU Méditerranée Infection, who has been tasked by - and consulted by - the French government to research possible treatments of Covid-19."
Note the caveat here: "the initial approach to testing was to identify patients among those with travel histories or persons with more severe disease, and these data might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease". One of the things that makes it frustratingly hard to tell the real likelihoods is that almost all data has this problem to some extent, except maybe the Diamond Princess cases, and there weren't enough young people on there to get good numbers.
My very naive take: could the difference in mortality between South Korea and Italy be explained by how SK tried antiviral drugs even when there was no strong evidence yet, while Europe stuck to anti inflammatory which we know now to be linked to severe outcomes?
Also, the probability of receiving a prescription drug is almost linear with respect to age.
So, could the highest death of >60 y.o. with comobidities be explained similarly by them taking drugs that have a negative impact on the disease?
I believe it was just one big one that had a lot of very old and very frail. Staff didn't pick up on what was going on and by the time they connected the dots people were dying.
Regardless of the number of nursing homes, the point stands that the figures are skewed by a few clear outliers.
Please just stay at home. At all times. I've locked myself in weeks ago, before the government of my country ordered lockdowns. Even if the true fatality rate in your age range is low - you'll kill some old person out there. Perhaps dozens. It's the most you can do. Bill Ackman does a good job of explaining why you should do that (and why should all countries be shut down):
This is not a selfless thing to do (if it were, we could isolate only high-risk groups rather than everyone). If we all get it simultaneously, and run out of nurses and ventilators, the fatality rate might not be low.
He walked that back later and said he was buying stocks. From his Twitter...
'Some investors have been confused by remarks. To clarify, I am confident the president will do the right thing in temporarily shutting down the country and closing the borders. If that happens, we can win the war against the virus and the markets and the economy will soar.'
' That is why we are buying stocks. These are bargains of a lifetime if we manage this crisis correctly.'
Wouldn't it be easier and perhaps better to only quarantine the old and those most at risk, then spend millions of dollars and community time to support them utterly through the next 3-6 months till the virus dies out?
The other approach is what we have now in the US, which is rolling quarantines as we put out virus outbreaks like brushfires. It disrupts everyone's life and makes it harder to get supplies to those most at need as everyone is constantly preparing themselves for a personal lockin.
[+] [-] ekidd|6 years ago|reply
The problem with all of these numbers is that they assume sufficient medical care and access to an ICU.
This report here breaks down how many people need an ICU by age: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-new-age-anal...
> In contrast, among people 20 to 44, 14% to 21% of 705 cases were admitted to hospitals and 2% to 4% to ICUs; 0.1% to 0.2% died.
If we assume that ICUs are overloaded, how many of the that 2-4% would die?
Not that this doesn't count the people who won't catch the virus because of herd immunity. There may also be some people who are immune, or who defeat the virus quickly enough to not show positive on an RNA test.
[+] [-] glibby|6 years ago|reply
It says:
>In contrast, among people 20 to 44, 14% to 21% of 705 cases were admitted to hospitals and 2% to 4% to ICUs; 0.1% to 0.2% died.
But the CDC report indicates that 12% total (of all cases) are known to have been hospitalized, and of that number, 20% were age 20-44. So that would mean that (0.12*.2=) 2.4% of people total were 20-44 and in the hospital. Now 29% of all cases were in that age group, so that would mean for the 20-44 age group there was a (2.4/29=)8.3% chance of hospitalization.
Maybe I misunderstood something there, but I think I'm right.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chimichangga|6 years ago|reply
UPDATE:
Full peer reviewed study has been released by Didier Raoult MD, PhD drive.google.com/file/d/186Bel9….
After 6 days 100% of patients treated with HCQ + Azithromycin were virologically cured
p-value <.0001
covidtrial.io
https://twitter.com/riganoesq/status/1240273631604809728?s=2...
[+] [-] hprotagonist|6 years ago|reply
Distribution of preprint by google drive remains highly suspect, as does the fact that the nominally illustrious first author communicates by a gmail address despite google scholar listing him as having a normal educational email address https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=n8EF_6kAAAAJ...
That said, i know plenty of intensely brilliant weirdo researchers -- but i'd take this with big grains of salt. and i have no idea why a z-pak is a booster for an antiviral therapy.
[+] [-] smallgovt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troughway|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koolba|6 years ago|reply
How would that help vs a virus? Or does it just help the body from having other unrelated things to also fight?
[+] [-] war1025|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endorphone|6 years ago|reply
The study itself is interesting, I’m sure, to people in the field (though reading about the study is a bit odd. Of their test group they simply remove six from consideration for reasons like “they died”), but is irrelevant to a layman.
We are undoubtedly going to have hundreds of “this is the cure” claims that aren’t the cure. The way this is presented has significant indicators of not being credible.
Google Drive, some guy claiming that something that isn't peer reviewed at all is "full peer reviewed", pimped on Twitter. Is HN this gullible? How is this nonsense at the top?
[+] [-] softwaredoug|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teddyvangogh|6 years ago|reply
"A renowned research professor in France has reported successful results from a new treatment for Covid-19, with early tests suggesting it can stop the virus from being contagious in just six days.
Professor Raoult is an infectious diseases specialist and head of the IHU Méditerranée Infection, who has been tasked by - and consulted by - the French government to research possible treatments of Covid-19."
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-researche...
[+] [-] makomk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lonelappde|6 years ago|reply
Scientific -> what a layperson would say
Mild -> sick
Moderate -> hospitalized
Severe -> deathly ill
[+] [-] notacoward|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yellowapple|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] divbzero|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1996|6 years ago|reply
Also, the probability of receiving a prescription drug is almost linear with respect to age.
So, could the highest death of >60 y.o. with comobidities be explained similarly by them taking drugs that have a negative impact on the disease?
[+] [-] dboreham|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosybox|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blaser-waffle|6 years ago|reply
Regardless of the number of nursing homes, the point stands that the figures are skewed by a few clear outliers.
[+] [-] dboreham|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] H8crilA|6 years ago|reply
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/bill-ackman-pleads-to-trump-...
[+] [-] erik_seaberg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnburnsy|6 years ago|reply
'Some investors have been confused by remarks. To clarify, I am confident the president will do the right thing in temporarily shutting down the country and closing the borders. If that happens, we can win the war against the virus and the markets and the economy will soar.'
' That is why we are buying stocks. These are bargains of a lifetime if we manage this crisis correctly.'
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 6nf|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dismantlethesun|6 years ago|reply
The other approach is what we have now in the US, which is rolling quarantines as we put out virus outbreaks like brushfires. It disrupts everyone's life and makes it harder to get supplies to those most at need as everyone is constantly preparing themselves for a personal lockin.