Hacker News Reader

Comment by ShorsHammer | Hacker News Reader

This is something I always find strange when people make these basic extrapolations with insane numbers for deaths.

Someone who never presents to hospital or gets tested can very much be infected and would never get counted in this estimated mortality rate.

Our flu numbers aren't the same. Epidemiologists estimate infection rates. They don't test 700 million people a year to see if they have the flu.

Flu is still a far bigger health concern but virtually everyone shrugs it off as a fact of life.

View on HN

> Flu is still a far bigger health concern but virtually everyone shrugs it off as a fact of life.

Because it has been a fact of life for the entirety of everyone living's life.

nCoV is a new threat that can kill, of course people will worry about it, it's instinctual.

We also don't have a vaccine for it yet, and an estimated 30% of infected people need hospital treatment, which is surely more than the usual flu, and requires more specialised & cautious care since less about it's known.

As the US' CDC says in the other nCoV post on the home page:

> The complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not fully understood.

It might just blow over and be fine, sure, but I don't think the response or caution surrounding it is irrational.

> an estimated 30% of infected people need hospital treatment, which is surely more than the usual flu

That sounds like an extraordinarily high estimate. How could we have an accurate estimate of hospitalisation proportions without even knowing how many infections are out in the community?

It seems very, very likely that we are missing the vast majority of cases given the tests are pretty inaccurate, and we only bother administering them to people who are either extremely sick already, or who have been in an "affected region" (realistically, every region is "affected" at this point).

I have no idea; it's not a job I envy.

But what I read in the UK was that looking increasingly like 'about 50%' would be infected, 'but only 30%' of those would actually need medical attention. Something similar came from the US with '40-70%' instead of 'about 50'.

But yes, a large part of the concern, particularly for government bodies coming out with these figures is preparedness; so they probably are erring on the side of 'more resources needed' in these estimates. But why not? Better over-prepared than under, not that that's looking likely.

The latest discussions going around are that there appears to be a neurological aspect that causes/triggers apnea, hence the need for mechanical breathing assistance. Possibly the reason why people are also seeming to just be dropping in the streets.

This is where the medical system is most limited in how much equipment they have on hand.

We are missing a lot of cases because they had been limiting testing to individuals coming from infected areas and those who directly contact them, which is why we are now seeing it appear in the general community.

It's going to be bad. Not societal collapse bad, but simply that if you think of 100 people you know, a few of them (particularly those that are elderly, immune suppressed or sick) are likely to die if they get infected. I think the path forward has to be protecting the vulnerable, like strictly quarantining aged-care facilities, cancer wards, etc to protect the residents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com