I think that's a better metric because it puts it in perspective. If you're 30, a 50% increased risk of death is still very very low. But if you're 80+ that risk is pretty substantial.
Note: this is basically extrapolating the New York and New Jersey numbers, which is assumed had the highest COVID19 penetration in the U.S.
One of the most notable things about Covid is that the IFR seems to be closely proportional to baseline all-cause mortality for most groups.
It's obviously not exact, so it's hard to tell whether this is just a case of coincidence and squinting to find a pattern in the noise. But still, I think there's potentially something deep going on that may tell us more about what mediates Covid lethality.
> I think that's a better metric because it puts it in perspective.
It’s interesting that you see it this way. Personally if someone said to me I have a 50% increased chance of death, I’d really struggle to make a proper risk assessment. Maybe it’s just hard to talk probabilities about ones own mortality
Based on New York isn't that off by 5 or so? Around 1% die each year, in New York State around .17% of coronavirus (confirmed/probable), and more likely ~.2% from coronavirus (excess deaths). To double normal deaths, reaching 2% dead for the year, it would need to be 5X higher excess deaths. There is still a quarter of the year left, but it doesn't seem enough.
I think it would be closer to doubling everyone's mortality risk only in the zero mitigation scenario.
Based on these data, can we now calculate the expected impact on life-years instead of just "deaths?" An 80 year old dying isn't a tragedy in the way a 30 year old is.
If you want to go down that path, you must also include long-term impairment of life function
E.g., a pitcher for the Boston Red Sox is out for the season due to a heart condition brought on by COVID-19, prognosis unknown. [1]
You don't get any healthier than a professional athlete for a top major sport, and although this guy likely will not die, he is off the field in in danger of losing his career.
And yes, I know several 80, and even 100-year olds that are a lot more sharp and physically active than many 40 year olds. Age is not the mere number you think it is. Genetics and decades of healthy/unhealthy choices create massive variations in healthspan and lifespan - you simply do not know that your "typical" 80-year-old has a near expiration date - (s)he could have decades of healthy, happy life ahead.
I'd say we'd need at least two years until that. The first to make a life table [0] and determine increased risk for each age in years. Then we could assume each person's added risk at successive ages is similar to people of that age this year.
The second (and further) years would support or disprove that assumption. My guess is disprove.
We still don't have enough data to get a good estimate of that, because we don't have good data on the number of people infected by the virus. Even the best surveillance testing regimes are known to miss a bunch of cases.
If we're supporting millions of COVID survivors, it might be a further argument to limit air pollution - banning coal and oil burning in power and transport, for example.
I had Asthma as a kid but COVID has triggered it back on again. I'm now a lot more sensitive to pollution.
The previous century was very hard on ,mostly(??), mens respiratory systems. Asbestos, silica etc. were inhaled by many. I don't find it surprising that 60+ men are more susceptible.
Both of these categories have been known since early on. There have been plenty of stories and initiatives focused on age (and BAME and comorbidities like obesity).
Maleness as a risk factor was being reported in Chinese statistics before Covid was prevalent in the rest of the world.
As was the weird underrepresentation of smokers among the infected. Which persisted through at least New York, there were several papers about it, but I haven't seen anything on the subject since.
The article proves itself a little bit pointless by closing with this without any elaboration:
> Although fatality estimates are important for understanding the risk of viral spread to people in different age groups, they don’t tell the full story of the toll COVID-19 takes, says Kilpatrick. “There is a fascination with death, but COVID-19 appears to cause a substantial amount of long-term illness,” he adds.
I've been very surprised by how little attention the media gives to the damage that covid does to people, but here's a few articles:
It makes me wonder what's going to happen in a few years from now in the countries that haven't controlled covid well. Will there be a huge demand for new types of medical treatments to help covid survivors?
Covid doesn't seem to be different that the flu in this regard. Any disease that has a fever component will leave some with long lasting problems. Any disease that infects the lungs will do the same. There has been nothing indicating that covid is unique in this regard.
For example, here's a paper going over heart inflamation and the flu, going over data gathered in the last 100 years [0].
> During the Sheffield, England influenza epidemic from 1972 to 1973, the cases of 50 consecutive patients who were initially diagnosed as mild cases and were treated on an outpatient basis were followed. Transient electrocardiogram (ECG) changes were seen in 18 patients, and long-lasting changes were seen in 5 patients.
I had something with symptoms similar to corona in March but there was not enough tests to get me prioritised (40 year old healthy male, 22.5 BMI).
It wasn't too bad but it lasted three weeks and I still have periodic shortness of breath and fatigue and my doctor has no clue what to do. I hope it's not permanent.
The study this references turned out to be based on bogus data and bad statistics. The original authors since amended their data and don't back down from their conclusions, but they seem a bit unjustified (IMO, and the opinion of their critics).
Here's the tweetstorm (sorry) from the professor that initially called this out [1], the acknowledgement of the errors [2], and the tweetstorm (again, sorry) from that professor again pointing out that the corrected data shows "Covid survivors DO have thingies in their T1. But it is JUST AS COMMON in people with similar risk factors who have NOT had Covid. In other words, yes there are those funny thingies in the scan, but it is NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING HAD COVID. It is because of the background risk factors" [3].
Here's a news article summing this all up nicely, if you prefer [4].
I'm a bit confused, I'm hearing lots about long term consequences, but then I hear that most cases are asymptomatic. Can someone who is asymptomatic have really have long term consequences? If so, wouldn't they have symptoms?
Any serious infection causes long-lasting damage. Even with bog-standard viral pneumonia, many people take 3-6 months to fully recover, and some people never feel as healthy as they did before. It's good to acknowledge that the harm of the disease goes beyond just people who die to it, but the media doesn't pay a huge amount of attention because it's not covid-specific.
All the articles I’ve read on this use anecdotal evidence. I haven’t seen much in any peer reviewed sense. From a scientific sense, what we’re looking for is something like “Covid causes a 50% increase in the occurrence of asthma.” It can be a rough estimate. In fact, given the omission across the scientific world and given the vast amounts of data, my estimate is there are no or mild after effects of covid.
25-50% of people in certain areas have gotten covid. A comparison to baseline is required. Having covid one day and developing seizures the next does not determine causation, as your prior is baseline.
as someone who fits the risk-group and wasn't able to attend funerals of a close childhood friend, ... I have a job-interview next week and been pondering how will I answer the question "where do you see yourself in 5 years" ... and should they really be _this_ insensitive to ask then I'll answer "on a respirator, probably" ...
I'm equally worried about the long term mental health issues people will suffer due to loss of jobs, and the domino effects that come from it (divorce, default on their debts, etc). Suicide rates will go through the roof. I think the secondary effects will in size be a lot larger than the reported number of people who have died + those who suffer from long term health-damage. Then there are those who missed cancer treatments, or who don't want to risk going in for chemo because they're equally worried about infecting themselves by leaving the house.
People talk about it, they just get effectively censored on consensus based websites like this because even the data-driven crowd is full of people that will cry “fearmongering!!”
Specifically because the data doesn’t exist yet so they have a coping mechanism shunning all discussion of possibilities
This was news in Feb or so, because not every disease has this profile. The 1919 flu, for instance, was much more deadly in the young (whose stronger immune systems could over-react more dramatically).
Thankfully, "more likely" does not mean "guaranteed". In the article if you're male and over 80 you still only had a 12% shot of passing due to it. Which means you actually probably won't die of it, but I wouldn't play a game with those odds, not to mention all the secondary effects - at least Russian Roulette has a fairly binary outcome.
[+] [-] lettergram|5 years ago|reply
https://austingwalters.com/u-s-covid19-less-tests-more-death...
I think that's a better metric because it puts it in perspective. If you're 30, a 50% increased risk of death is still very very low. But if you're 80+ that risk is pretty substantial.
Note: this is basically extrapolating the New York and New Jersey numbers, which is assumed had the highest COVID19 penetration in the U.S.
[+] [-] rubidium|5 years ago|reply
That’s a poor measure for a number of reasons. Not least of which is we’re getting a lot better at treating Covid medically.
[+] [-] dcolkitt|5 years ago|reply
It's obviously not exact, so it's hard to tell whether this is just a case of coincidence and squinting to find a pattern in the noise. But still, I think there's potentially something deep going on that may tell us more about what mediates Covid lethality.
[+] [-] mxcrossb|5 years ago|reply
It’s interesting that you see it this way. Personally if someone said to me I have a 50% increased chance of death, I’d really struggle to make a proper risk assessment. Maybe it’s just hard to talk probabilities about ones own mortality
[+] [-] kalleboo|5 years ago|reply
It's a classic tabloid shock headline to write "XXX will increase your risk of cancer by 10 times!" (when your base risk of cancer is low).
So whenever I see a statistic phrased like you did, I assume it's bullshit.
[+] [-] cma|5 years ago|reply
I think it would be closer to doubling everyone's mortality risk only in the zero mitigation scenario.
[+] [-] dr_dshiv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toss1|5 years ago|reply
E.g., a pitcher for the Boston Red Sox is out for the season due to a heart condition brought on by COVID-19, prognosis unknown. [1]
You don't get any healthier than a professional athlete for a top major sport, and although this guy likely will not die, he is off the field in in danger of losing his career.
And yes, I know several 80, and even 100-year olds that are a lot more sharp and physically active than many 40 year olds. Age is not the mere number you think it is. Genetics and decades of healthy/unhealthy choices create massive variations in healthspan and lifespan - you simply do not know that your "typical" 80-year-old has a near expiration date - (s)he could have decades of healthy, happy life ahead.
[1] https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/08/01/eduardo-rodriguez-red-sox-...
[+] [-] chimprich|5 years ago|reply
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75
[+] [-] vharuck|5 years ago|reply
The second (and further) years would support or disprove that assumption. My guess is disprove.
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregwebs|5 years ago|reply
So I don't think anyone can determine their risk from this article. It is much higher or lower depending on whether or not you have co-morbidities.
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArkVark|5 years ago|reply
I had Asthma as a kid but COVID has triggered it back on again. I'm now a lot more sensitive to pollution.
[+] [-] burtonator|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denebola|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mellosouls|5 years ago|reply
"Male" not so much.
[+] [-] samatman|5 years ago|reply
As was the weird underrepresentation of smokers among the infected. Which persisted through at least New York, there were several papers about it, but I haven't seen anything on the subject since.
[+] [-] nradov|5 years ago|reply
Age-specific mortality and immunity patterns of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 45 countries
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.24.20180851
Infection fatality rate is <0.1% below age 50 and then trends up rapidly from from there.
[+] [-] jfoster|5 years ago|reply
> Although fatality estimates are important for understanding the risk of viral spread to people in different age groups, they don’t tell the full story of the toll COVID-19 takes, says Kilpatrick. “There is a fascination with death, but COVID-19 appears to cause a substantial amount of long-term illness,” he adds.
I've been very surprised by how little attention the media gives to the damage that covid does to people, but here's a few articles:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jul/13/heart-scans-...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/seizures-and-battered-heart-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/08/17/covid-...
It makes me wonder what's going to happen in a few years from now in the countries that haven't controlled covid well. Will there be a huge demand for new types of medical treatments to help covid survivors?
[+] [-] mikem170|5 years ago|reply
For example, here's a paper going over heart inflamation and the flu, going over data gathered in the last 100 years [0].
> During the Sheffield, England influenza epidemic from 1972 to 1973, the cases of 50 consecutive patients who were initially diagnosed as mild cases and were treated on an outpatient basis were followed. Transient electrocardiogram (ECG) changes were seen in 18 patients, and long-lasting changes were seen in 5 patients.
[0] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.685...
[+] [-] tyfon|5 years ago|reply
It wasn't too bad but it lasted three weeks and I still have periodic shortness of breath and fatigue and my doctor has no clue what to do. I hope it's not permanent.
Death is definitely not the only bad outcome.
[+] [-] wk_end|5 years ago|reply
The study this references turned out to be based on bogus data and bad statistics. The original authors since amended their data and don't back down from their conclusions, but they seem a bit unjustified (IMO, and the opinion of their critics).
Here's the tweetstorm (sorry) from the professor that initially called this out [1], the acknowledgement of the errors [2], and the tweetstorm (again, sorry) from that professor again pointing out that the corrected data shows "Covid survivors DO have thingies in their T1. But it is JUST AS COMMON in people with similar risk factors who have NOT had Covid. In other words, yes there are those funny thingies in the scan, but it is NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING HAD COVID. It is because of the background risk factors" [3].
Here's a news article summing this all up nicely, if you prefer [4].
[1] https://twitter.com/ProfDFrancis/status/1288246926392070145?...
[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
[3] https://twitter.com/ProfDFrancis/status/1298524305945436161
[4] https://www.tctmd.com/news/message-unchanged-say-researchers...
[+] [-] dalore|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eanzenberg|5 years ago|reply
25-50% of people in certain areas have gotten covid. A comparison to baseline is required. Having covid one day and developing seizures the next does not determine causation, as your prior is baseline.
[+] [-] DyslexicAtheist|5 years ago|reply
I'm equally worried about the long term mental health issues people will suffer due to loss of jobs, and the domino effects that come from it (divorce, default on their debts, etc). Suicide rates will go through the roof. I think the secondary effects will in size be a lot larger than the reported number of people who have died + those who suffer from long term health-damage. Then there are those who missed cancer treatments, or who don't want to risk going in for chemo because they're equally worried about infecting themselves by leaving the house.
[+] [-] vmception|5 years ago|reply
Specifically because the data doesn’t exist yet so they have a coping mechanism shunning all discussion of possibilities
[+] [-] noch|5 years ago|reply
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/long-haul...
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-...
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19positive/
[+] [-] cainxinth|5 years ago|reply
Not exactly shocking news. The risk of dying from most diseases increases significantly with age.
[+] [-] iguy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dirtyoldmick|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tboyd47|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iamgopal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SketchySeaBeast|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgcj_poster|5 years ago|reply