People don’t realize young and health will also die

[Firespider]

Hi, I am Chinese and have been in the UK for 10 years. I have read through lots of the threads here and been surprised that people think only old and vulnerable will die from Covid-19. Truth is 15% will need oxygen, 5% will need ventilation. Many of them are young. If no treatment is provided large part of these patient will die. That’s what happened in Wuhan and is happening in Italy. The reason we only see death of old patients I the UK now is because the average course from symptoms onsite to death is 17 days. Young patient will stick longer. Mild cases range from slightly cough to pneumonia! The word pneumonia itself is serious enough. I am very worried about the government’s action.

From worldometer today

It literally says last updated March 5th so way out of date in a fast moving situation and refers to stuff from February.

You cannot compare the UK to China. For a start off, China has the highest proportion of smokers in the world, as well as a far more dense population. Neither of these are conductive to recovering from a virus that affects the lungs.

I think the children rate is because instead of it being among all children between those ages there were only a few maybe 500.

Same with the adults there isn't as many 30yo in hospital but the ones that are are severe.

The issue for me is you can't control how severe it is and if you have underlying things that is as important.
Plus many 30yo asthmatic would survive with oxygen but with such a big peak we won't get it!!

That is people's concern. Many more people survive if no overwhelm. With overwhelm you are likely looking at 10% death of confrmed cases. Because they don't get the ventilator

Can posters just be allowed to post and not be criticised for their own thinking and hushed up. Everyone is entitled to express how they are feeling. It is not scaremongering. Everyone is under enormous strain due to the unknown and we come here to read, digest and voice an opinion.

If you don't like a thread - leave the thread? Others are watching all of this with interest due to limited reporting to what is happening in the UK..

But are the numbers being covered up

No, they aren't!

To be blunt: yes, there was a cover up coming out of China at the beginning of this. We know there was and - even though they've not officially admitted as much - the actions by the Chinese government since ar as much as a tacit confession.

Scaremongering really doesn't help!

So, in effect: what we currently know is that the CFR for young people is in the fraction of a percent range. If countries were better at systematic testing (and they aren't, which bugs me), we'd have more clarity on what precisely that fraction is.

But:

• The actual fatalities out of Italy don't bear out the claim that "young and healthy" people routinely die
• I'm in Switzerland as you can tell by my user name. Switzerland has a 32-year-old fatality at present. This is confirmed to be a person who had serious, underlying health issues. In fact, her infection with COVID-19 was only confirmed postmortem.
• Figures from other countries appear to align with these data points.

Now, I'm not saying "no young and otherwise healthy people will die". On a population level, this is all statistics. Assuming a (source: pulled it out of my bum for illustration!!!) mortality rate of 0.01% of identified(!!!) cases among the young and otherwise healthy, this still does mean that some young and otherwise healthy people are likely to die. It also puts the risk for this particular demographic somewhere in the region of "still getting pregnant despite being on the pill and taking it religiously as per instructions". As in "we all know a 'friend of a friend' this has supposedly happened to but we're not about to buy a pram just in case even though we, too, rely on the pill for contraception".

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the situation isn't serious. The situation is very serious indeed. But it's just not being helped by anecdotes and claims being bandies about when they're not being supported by the best information actually out there.

I'm the very first to agree that "the best information actually out there" could be improved a lot by authorities adopting sensible measures.

Look, I know fuck all about epidemiology. But I do know a thing or two about managing risk and about statistical probability - because that's literally what I do for a living.

FWIW, all of my own >250 employees are under strict instructions not to come into the office or take client meetings in person. That's s per my own order, because of social responsibility and because I realise how dangerous the situation is and how sensible drastic social distancing measures are. But I'm not particularly worried that even a single one of them might actually, personally die, from a probability point of view. Of course, on a personal level, I'm doing everything I can to protect them from exposure. But, frankly, this is more me worrying that my young, travel-savvy and unafraid workforce will turn into a vector of infection than me worrying that they're about to drop dead.

@Ofthread
Not really relevant to his thread though is it.
And you've asked me that question already. If you can't be bothered to read my answer or to provide any of the evidence you claim supports your assertions, I'm not sure what you're doing here

“Confirmation bias”

🤔 what do you think “underlying conditions” means?

Ofthread, if we’re talking about the WHO’s figure of 3.4% morbidity rate (Direct quote from WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died”) Then yes it is technically accurate based on the information we have (total known cases and total known deaths) but it’s not accurate in the sense of what the actual morbidity rate is as there will definitely have been many more undiscovered cases which would massively reduce that death rate. Lots of people are asymptomatic, and testing has been limited even for those with symptoms. If every single case was known it would bring the death rate right down.

Then there’s also the fact that the death rate will be different depending on the treatment you get (death rates may be higher at the start of an epidemic compared to months in when more is known about how best to treat it)

I’m just saying a blanket calculation of 60-80% of the country getting it, and 3.4% of those dying, isn’t helpful (not saying you were doing that, just in general)

I understand that must be frustrating Purple. And I hope you're telling them too.

Ofthread is just determined to drum up some hysteria. Shame on you.

Don't forget China and Italy took a while to take it seriously too!

@Ofthread smoking increases the risk of death by an OR of 2.23 in the study I linked to. Sure you can dismiss peer-reviewed science in the lancet as confirmation bias if you like. But it's breathtakingly arrogant to think your personal opinion is mor robust than that of published evidence from Chinese medical experts

BrexpatinSwitzerland can I just say thank you for your post, it's really helped me as I've been panicking a bit and I needed some sensible perspective.

I'm still seeing people on my Facebook posting "I don't know what all the fuss is about, it's just flu".

Please keep posting the facts - they're awful and scary. But they're the facts, and I, for one, like to arm myself with them.

@BrexpatInSwitzerland thanks for your post. I do agree about what you mentioned. The risk for young and healthy is very low, but I do think the risk is still much much higher than a flu and the government should do everything they can to control the spread and young and healthy people should also try their best to avoid being infected.

12% of those in Intensive Care in Italy are under 50.

The data from Italy underlines that whilst yes, it's overwhelmingly old people who die from Covid-19, those figures are not the same for people who get the virus.

I imagine as the virus progresses through other countries the figures will be more or less the same taking into account total population number and all other variables.

* 12% of those in Intensive Care in Italy are under 50.*

Italy has adopted an age limit for ICU. Almost all patients are under 65.

Italy has an extremely high death rate, Germany a low one.

Why, that’s what I want to ask

Some people think the high elderly population in Italy combined with the main areas being around one or two cities, so concentrated in one / two areas rather than more spread out contributed

There are 1,518 Italian patients in Intensive Care.
12% of those are under 50.
Most deaths are in the 81-89 years age bracket.
So, how can almost all intensive care patients be under 65?

Where are the people dying?

Italy hasn't actually adopted that protocol. They are talking about possibly having to. They probably will do, in certain regions, in certain hospitals of certain regions. But it hasn't happened yet.

The under

Because when they closed schools Italians thought it was a good idea to take themselves off to Southern Italy. Spaniards did something similar. That’s why the virus has spread so much in those countries and it’s why the UK is delaying school closures.

The flood to the south was only last Saturday. The effect that will have on the numbers is still negligible due to incubation period.
And doesn't account for the 88% in intensive care who are not under 50 and yet can't be over 65.

Those percentages won't be evenly distributed, though. They will cluster disproportionately in the older patients and those with underlying conditions. That the rate needing ventilation is 5% does not mean that 5% of 20somethings who acquire it will require ventilation.

That doesn't mean that nobody under the age of 70 will die, obviously, but those percentages you posted say nothing specifically about the risk to younger people.