Hacker News Reader

"Just fine" is really misleading.

The 45 - 64 age group accounts for 23% of deaths currently [1]. There are widespread reports of high hospitalization rates for people under the age of 50 [2][3][4][5]. Unfortunately, most of the statistics being collected are focusing on official mortality rates, which leads people to see much higher numbers for "old" people and assume there's no impact for younger groups, which isn't true. ICU hospitalization is still a serious health care event, even if the probable outcome is much better.

Finally, please stop referring to what's going on as "panic". All things considered, most people have been remarkably calm. The only ones panicking seem to be the crazy attention-seekers blocking traffic.

[1]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...

[2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/fj1owh/over_ha...

[3]: https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/fip9t9/france_...

[4]: https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/fipavk/more_th...

[5]: https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-city-coronavirus-ca...

> Finally, please stop referring to what's going on as "panic". All things considered, most people have been remarkably calm. The only ones panicking seem to be the crazy attention-seekers blocking traffic.

Stopping the world is the panic button. 100% of the news cycle devoted to coverage. All schools shut down. It can be justified or unjustified but I think it's a stretch to call it anything but panic. I'd say the only ones who aren't panicking are the Swedes. A bold strategy, cotton, let's see if it pays off.

The key piece is young and healthy. Very few people who are under 50 and don't have chronic health conditions have succumbed to Covid-19. A recent study of NYC patients [1] indicated that only 6.4% of hospitalizations (for all age groups!) were patients with zero co-morbidities.

I would also argue that being aged 45-64 isn't exactly "young". The share of U.S. deaths for those under 45 is 2.8%. Under 35 is 0.89%. [2]

It's also important to point out that the percentage of deaths attributed to a given age bracket is not the same thing as your chance of dying of the disease. I don't think you were suggesting this, but just in case other people read these statistics and are alarmed, I wanted to mention it.

I'm not saying that Covid-19 isn't serious. But we have a good deal of data at this point that indicates that if you are young and healthy, you are very unlikely to die if you contract the disease.

[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184

[2]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

While the young might rarely die, this illness is not something you want even if young. It can be pretty brutal and there is some evidence that it causes damage to lung even in the absence of symptoms.

> While the young might rarely die, this illness is not something you want even if young.

To begin of course, you don't want any disease at any age.

Setting that aside it's pretty clear that you're less likely to die of COVID as a child than you are of the flu (which hits both young and old). Children are less likely to develop any meaningful symptoms in the first place, and if they do, they're less severe. Lots of ongoing research on this.

“The fact is that we are not seeing preponderance of severe [COVID-19] disease in young children, which is distinct from influenza...” [1]

> It can be pretty brutal...

Yup.

> ...and there is some evidence that it causes damage to lung even in the absence of symptoms.

[citation needed], specifically for children.

[1] https://time.com/5816239/children-coronavirus/

This paper found more than half of the asymptomatic patients had lung damage [1].

1. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110

The Diamond Princess averaged (mean age, 62 years ± 16, range 25-93) years old. That's not the demographic we're discussing. We know they're way, way worse off than younger folks. I was also informed that the "73% asymptomatic" rate they quote in this article dwindled down to below 18%.

Your study also appears to indicate that the amount of damage is correlated to severity of the disease ("The CT severity score was higher in symptomatic cases than asymptomatic cases, particularly in the lower lobes"), which is demonstrably much lower in children.

It's also not clear this damage won't go away.

I was making the point that this disease is an issue for the young and it causes damage to the lungs even in the absence of symptoms. This is a serious disease that needs to be taken seriously.

> I was making the point that this disease is an issue for the young...

[citation needed]

> ... and it causes damage to the lungs even in the absence of symptoms.

The data you provided did not back up your assertion. I have not seen any data the backs up your assertion. If you have some, please do share it.

The data you provided suggested 73% of those folks were asymptomatic when in fact only 18% of them were upon further investigation. That brings into question all of their conclusions. Its interim conclusions suggest that there is a correlation between symptomaticity and severity (I mean, duh) and the articles I provided showed children exhibited milder symptoms.

> This is a serious disease that needs to be taken seriously.

Yes, it is, and it's not equally serious to everyone. It is less serious than the flu for children. This is substantiated fact. We can use this information to our advantage as we determine our next steps.

I am not sure the relevance of flu in children for the problem of COVID-19. The flu rarely causes serious illness in children and thankfully SARS-CoV-2 also rarely causes serious illness in children.

Well, this was all born out of the line in the post saying that young and healthy healthcare workers were dying. The data indicates that occasionally, they have, but overwhelmingly, the data indicates the statement is false. This continued on to an evaluation of "even if they don't die, they may have permanent lung injuries -- even if they show no symptoms" and I responded that I have not seen any data to indicate this is the case. I'm certainly open to it being true (it was for SARS-COV-1) but I have not seen any supporting evidence.

Perhaps you should contact these medical residents to remind them that they'll be "just fine": https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/terrifying-privilege-resi...

I also see a fair number of younger people on this list: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927976

Again, I suggest you look at the data instead of responding emotionally. We need to allow the data to guide us.

I'm skeptical of the Medscape list, since it appears to be the product of a Google form. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I chose not to use it as my primary source because unlike the government data I provided, it's unclear how or if it's being verified.

I agree that data is good, but the data you linked to seems to be for Italy only. Perhaps they had adequate PPE?

I'm kind of skeptical of the idea that the doctors and nurses in the United States are simply reacting out of irrational fear.

If I had to put myself in their shoes I would react out of panic too, if all of a sudden my day to day was flooded by cases of this new respiratory disease. Doctors and nurses suffer the same sort of adverse selection bias as CFR data: you're not counting the healthy. The doctors are only ever exposed to the sick, day in and day out, not to the healthy who don't walk through their doors. They're experiencing a concentration of the negative effects, orders of magnitude worse than what's happening outside the hospital.

that’s one of a number of misleading assumptions stemming from the core presumption that

> “It is my belief that the best cure for any disease is to avoid the disease.”

on top of that, even assumptions about how to do that (avoid the disease) at scale are often mistaken. that’s a big credibility hurdle.

with that said, mass and frequent testing would be a method to quarantine the infected, and get treatment for the most vulnerable (like the elderly), faster (surveillance implications notwithstanding), which would drop R0 like a rock.

There is plenty of data to come up with a viable solution.

The Proximity Solution:

https://medium.com/@dilip.dasilva/introducing-the-proximity-...