> This is just a panic created on social media.
Don't be ridiculous. You can discuss the distribution of deaths, but the deaths are real.
A 2% death rate is still 2%. That's huge. It still has the potential to overwhelm any country's health system.
Don't be ridiculous. You can discuss the distribution of deaths, but the deaths are real.
A 2% death rate is still 2%. That's huge. It still has the potential to overwhelm any country's health system.
In the US, of people aged 20-44, "only" 2.0-4.2% are admitted into ICU, significant, but making up only 12% of the ICU admissions, and 20% of the hospitalizations. [1]
0: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763401 1: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm...
Correction: 11.9% of people in ICU in Italy are 19-50; 51.2% are 51-70; and 36.9% are > 70 [1].
[1] https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Bolletti...
About the only place I’ve seen where rational talk is allowed without getting flame to death is /r/covid19.
Hacker news, unfortunately, appears to have devolved into yet another place full of panic stricken people.
I'm happy to defer to actual stats if you have any.
Page 5 of the recent well-respected Imperial paper on modelling approaches to managing the outbreak has statistics on hospitalisation that I imagine are the current best estimates.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-ana...
For example, 3.2% of cases aged 30-39 require hospitalisation. Could that rise to 40% after triage? I'm not sure, it seems high, but it depends on what pressures the system is under.
Unfortunately this approach doesn't work unless you somehow deal with the relatives of the millions of 80 year olds who are now pissed off that the government let them die and their bodies rot in the streets, and you arrange for the army for force medical providers not to try to treat some proportion of the dying.