Hacker News Reader

Comment by ddingus | Hacker News Reader

Those are the worst. They have a mild case and there basically is no convincing them otherwise, unless someone close to them has a different experience.

View on HN

>unless someone close to them has a different experience.

my partner could not give two trucks that i was sick. through the sleepless gasping nights where i was wondering if it was time to go to the hospital, my partner blamed it on anxiety. when i couldn't feel my feet, my partner thought it was due to me not eating (because food tasted like paper). this all culminated with my partner calling me lazy for sleeping all day. it really woke me up to their attitude and has reshaped the trajectory of our relationship. as of now it's pretty much just a show so our kids don't end up too messed up

That sucks. No way around it.

And the incentives to push back on all this are super high!

People absolutely do not want to have to be bothered. Not all people, but the numbers are much higher than I expected.

Speaking as someone who’s parents when waited to get divorced until I went to college, I think I would have been less messed up if they’d been honest and mature enough to get divorced when they’d wanted to.

Speaking as someone in that same boat, I appreciate my parents kept a semblance of a family for my entire childhood. Hearing my friends who did not have that makes me understand that even my childhood with all of the fighting and arguing was better than that of my peers who did not have a good relationship with one or both of their parents

I mean, that's 99.6% of everyone that gets it.

In which case everything everyone here is saying has been blown out of proportion.

Actually, it was not, and is not now.

You are conflating outcomes with cases in progress.

To understand severity, work with outcomes and that is dead people divided by recovered people.

Infected people will eventually arrive at their outcome, but until they have actually ran their infection course, adding them into the risk assessment artificially marginalizes risk.

Early on, before we understood treatment, the outcome numbers, chance of someone dying was quite high, 7 percent or so depending.

It is currently a little over 1 percent and will likely improve as the science does, and our ability to treat cases is managed better. And that assumes we can get people vaccinated in high enough numbers to manage mutation rates.

So far, vaccinated people do not die. Vast improvement over the 1'ish percentage currently in play for unvaccinated people.

Without that, we run the very real risk of a mutation sending us back to the beginning.

I have had this exact conversation with people who died thinking their low risk assessment, dividing dead people by infected people, made sense.

It does not, and it does not because outcomes are being mixed in with cases in progress. It is like combining the wrong units and wondering why nature does not match the math.

Could you please explain how you got this number? If I look at the statistics for the most countries in Europe I'll see a ratio of around 2/100 between detected cases and deaths (Germany, Belgium). That would mean that we would have around 5x more cases than we detect ,if we see "mild" as doesn't die. If you define "mild" as "not in hospital" this number would be even higher (meaning in some case that more than 100% of the population of a country would have had covid). So please explain your numbers and reasoning.

Looking at your previous comments, it seems you like to throw out this stat and other... less than factual statements, then never back up your comments or engage in the conversation. You are trolling or misguided.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com