If you haven’t had it you won’t understand. I can’t swim but if you’re a swimmer you might understand a parallel - it’s like not being able to swim - your head bobbing on water surface, sometimes you can breathe other times you are just gasping. If you’re in water the people will see you’re drowning and a life guard will pull you out.
Pneumonia is this “almost drowning” for weeks!and then bring barely able to breathe for months.
Again: fear is exactly the right response to pneumonia!
Yes, but not so much fear that you ride out your stroke or heart attack at home because you think venturing out of your house and into the ER is wading into certain death via pneumonia.
That is the level of fear that the media has induced in some people and it's even more dangerous (at the individual level) than too little fear.
The media? Or social media? Or random blogs and forums? It’s easy to accuse a general “media” but we get bombarded by so much content that it’s hard to really pinpoint who’s doing the fear mongering. Anecdata, I found the coverage in my city (Toronto) being much more accurate by the traditional large media than the random crap I’ve been reading on twitter / local reddit / click-baity blogs. And I wouldn’t put the 24 hours cable news channel in the same category as the newspaper either. “Medias” can mean so many things.
I live in Ontario where ~250 people get diagnosed with malignant tumors on an average day vs. 500 people getting diagnosed with COVID at the peak of the pandemic (now ~350).
Months after the lockdown started and the surge was successfully averted, we're still not doing cancer surgeries and diagnostics. I don't understand how this level of fear and conservatism is saving more people than it's hurting. COVID is nowhere near as dangerous as a malignant tumor.
There is a middle ground of appropriate fear that we've blown past.
What if Ontario was like new York State? Then Ontario with a pop of 14M vs 19.5M would have lost around 15,000 people not 1600 as current.
There is also this assumption that people will haplessly get infected as if they were livestock. Which they are not. The will stop going up, stop spending money, avoiding work if they can. That's baked in and not something the government imposes. Except to impose order on the process. An orderly early lockdown is better than a late chaotic panicked one.
No it's absolutely not. Your risk of dying, or of having life altering chronic illness, from not immediately seeking medical attention if you are having a heart attack or stroke is far higher than your risk from COVID, and those people aren't showing up at hospital right now.
Update: updated the stat to 0.25%, based on the official fatality count of 21,045 and a population of 8.4mil.
In 2018, NYC’s premature death rate was 189 per 100,000, or 0.189% of the population. In a single quarter COVID-19 has already surpassed all causes of premature death combined. And that’s before the epidemic is done, and before we’ve had a chance to re-test earlier deaths to adjust the numbers properly.
You’re not wrong that some people will die from otherwise treatable heart attacks, and that’s tragic. But to assert that more will die from staying home than not requires some pretty extraordinary evidence.
Assuming you have a heart attack, your chance of dying is 20%. Higher if you don't get treatment.
That's as high or higher than your chance of dying from covid-19 assuming you're in the highest risk group.
A conservative estimate of likelihood to catch covid if you go to a hospital at this point is 5%. In reality it's probably lower.
These end up mostly cancelling out, so if you the I the chance you're suffering from a heart attack is higher than the chance of catching covid you should go to the hospital. (And this is me still fudging the numbers to make covid look comparatively more dangerous than it really is).
People will needlessly sir if we collectively overstate tht dangers of covid. That's without a doubt true. People will also die if we understate them and don't take reasonable precautions.
What about the people who have the symptoms of COVID-19, where it's not severe enough for them to be hospitalized for that, so the messaging is for them to self-quarantine; but then they also get struck with some other problem (such as a heart attack)? I feel like I've heard no clear messaging on what such people are supposed to do, even from the most rational/level-headed medical authorities.
I imagine being in those shoes feels a lot like it would have to need surgery when you're HIV positive, back when HIV was an eventual death sentence: you'd feel guilt/shame for exposing your doctors to this coincidental problem you have, that might get them sick.
And so these people don't go, and end up dying of these other problems, likely at a much higher level than the people who are just staying indoors out of paranoia.
People tend to call 911 while they're having a heart attack; but a first heart attack doesn't tend to kill people, so if they live through it, they tend to think it isn't an urgent problem in need of calling 911, and instead just go to the hospital at their earliest convenience. The problem here guilt/shame delaying "earliest convenience."
I can understand. I had it and got tested positive for antibodies recently.
I had symptoms but it honestly was more like a mild flu.
So please stop your fear mongering and holier than thou attitude, just because you had it and it was bad doesn't mean that everyone will be the same. In fact serological studies prove that the overwhelming majority barely have any symptoms, and of those who do even fewer develop into a severe illness.
> So please stop your fear mongering and holier than thou attitude, just because you had it and it was bad doesn't mean that everyone will be the same.
I'm not sure you fully understand the problem you're trying to discuss. The problem is not just about ourselves catching it. The main problem is us acting as transmission vectors to anyone and everyone around us.
You may believe you are magically enchanted to not have any lasting consequences from a covid19 infection, but I'm quite sure that you come across people who may fall within one of the risk cohorts. Thus you crossing their path might very well be a death sentence to them. But that shouldn't bother you, right?
Ok here is a random stat, by definition itself 10% of people will be in bottom 10 percentile of the health risk profile and at huge risk.
I am not countering you but the parent. Old age itself is a pre-existing condition and then we develop more for each day we live (obesity, heart attacks, diabetes). I know the numbers of true risk may be different but can we manage 5-15% of people falling extremely sick?
Strictly, this isn't right. You can have more than ten percent of a population below the tenth percentile of a measure. Consider how this stat squares the percentage of people with less than (or more than) the tenth percentile of finger count.
It is interesting to consider what the death toll from exporting American food culture worldwide is. I think it would really help put the death toll from corona virus in perspective.
I guess it can help with coping with one's own fear and helplessness. Those people brought it on themselves, so I'm good because I didn't do the bad things they did, and it's less of a problem if they suffer, because again they brought it on themselves. Something like that maybe. I don't really get it either.
The content of this 'news article' is an interview with a virologist with years of experience and a strong reputation among his peers. His understanding of the seriousness and his first-hand experience seem to be in pretty strong opposition to your position. How is that fear mongering by 'the news'? I don't disagree that the general news media has been as sensational as they can be (that's worked for them with all the other 'news' ) but it seems to be really dangerous to use that to downplay the actual seriousness of this pandemic.
Fear-mongering, or reporting the facts? Plenty of people wouldn’t know about that aspect of the disease, I’m quite happy the media isn’t trying to cover it up.
For it to be informative, you need to provide the adequate context that explains it. "New evidence shows that coronavirus can cause long term breathing problems" suggests that this is something unique or unexpected about this, when it's really par for the course for any upper respiratory infection that takes a turn for the worse.
>> suggests that this is something unique or unexpected about this, when it's really par for the course for any upper respiratory infection that takes a turn for the worse.
I wonder why they report the number of deaths and infections. After all it's all known that viruses spread and people die from respiratory infections, right?
In many places the annual flu is more deadly. And all the articles about running out of space at morgues, etc. are common in winter in Europe.
We've had SARS and MERS before (MERS is way more deadly, yet we didn't enter a global panic). There is something specific about this panic, and it's not the virus; it's a variant of something we've seen before.
That the media played fear mongering is a given, that's what they always do; I suspect the new factor is social media, which has probably amplified that factor even more.
> We've had SARS and MERS before (MERS is way more deadly, yet we didn't enter a global panic). There is something specific about this panic, and it's not the virus; it's a variant of something we've seen before.
Can I suggest some basic reasoning as to why? Do you know which countries MERS spread to and how many people died as a result of MERS since it was first identified?
MERS was first identified in 2012. In 8 years, it has killed about 866 people worldwide.
SARS was first identified in 2002. In 2 years, it has killed 774 people and then disappeared.
SARS-Cov-2, the novel coronavirus, first appeared only 6 months ago in China. Since then, it has killed 100,000s.
How can you suggest that there isn’t more cause for concern over SARS-Cov-2, considering deaths are already at over 100x the other two viruses you mention in far less time, and that this death count comes despite an incredible, unprecedented international campaign to slow the virus?
Granted, this one is tougher, but not that much tougher than a bad strain of influenza.
Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing anything. The catastrophe movie, Hollywood-like global mass hysteria was totally over the top and unwarranted, though.
We have ways to deal with epidemics that don't involve completely changing the rules, talking about "being at war" and so on.
> In many places the annual flu is more deadly. And all the articles about running out of space at morgues, etc. are common in winter in Europe.
This is false and you are spreading misinformation. The estimated IFR you can calculate from e.g. the antibody test done in NYC is between 0.8 and 1.5% that's 10times higher than the flu. Moreover, the percentage of patients requiring intensive care is comparatively even higher (it really is not about the death rate primarily). Also please show some evidence for you assertion that morgues running out of space in Europe is common.
> We've had SARS and MERS before (MERS is way more deadly, yet we didn't enter a global panic). There is something specific about this panic, and it's not the virus; it's a variant of something we've seen before.
The reason why MERS and SARS did not cause this response is because they spread much slower. There are lots of diseases which are more deadly than covid19, the difference is how they spread. For example a disease that spreads through blood transfusions could have 99% fatility rate but would never be as dangerous to public health as covid 19 is.
> That the media played fear mongering is a given, that's what they always do; I suspect the new factor is social media, which has probably amplified that factor even more.
Actually the new thing is "experts" popping up all over social media talking about how everything is just overblown and we should not trust the real experts. This stories are pushed very clearly from political corners with a very specific agenda, it's all about discrediting science, evidence based decision making and our institutions (it all started with cigarettes then global warming and now covid19) . That's the irony all the conspiracy followers don't realise that they are part of the biggest misinformation campaign orchestrated by groups with very strong economic interests (you might even call them elites)
I said that it is more deadly in many places, and you're talking about a single place (NYC). Let me remind you that it's not actually the centre of the world.
And I think you're reading a bit too much into my post. I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist or whatever (and may I suggest you take your condescending tone and shove it deep down where the Coronavirus won't reach it?)
Now, I'm actually following the advice of scientists. I'm not more an "expert" than you are an "expert", of course, that is correct. I'm French, and our foremost (actual) expert on the issue, Professor Didier Raoult, whose advice I'm listening to, has been saying that it's just another respiratory disease epidemic, like we have regularly. He's not advising to do nothing; quite the opposite, for many years he's been asking the government to do more to fight seasonal flu. Now, the irony is that he finds himself in the camp of people urging the government to calm down a bit...
"FACT OF THE DAY. The number of deaths largely exceeds the seasonal average. Like emergency rooms, funeral services are overflowing"
This happens every other winter here, and it's generally worse in Italy due to their older population. It's bad, we need to manage those epidemics, but not start shooting a catastrophe movie every time that happens.
There has been quite a lot of “It’s like the flu“ messaging, including here on HN. In that light, and considering people’s idea of the flu is often closer to the common cold than the actual flu, I do believe most people would be surprised to learn of chronic health issues persisting after even mild courses of COVID.
Straw man. No one thinks the media should "cover it up". However, It would be more responsible for the media to not present the public with so much obvious misinformation about the virus.
You've been making big assertions about “misinformation”, “fear-mongering”, etc. but you haven't provided any evidence or analysis supporting those claims. Since you're taking a position which is contrary to what medical experts are saying you really need to substantially back it up.
From the start of epidemic in Europe, all media (that i read or listened) constantly mentioned ~5 % fatality rate (based on case reports). While WHO report from 2020-02 already reported IFR estimations 0.3% - 1.0%.
The other poster already pointed out that there is a difference between CFR and IFR (and initially CFR was reported because we did not have good estimates of CFR) The IFR for the flu is 0.1% in the bad years, and we have estimates of the IFR which are more in line with 0.9 to 1.5% (based on the antibody tests in NYC for example). That's 10 times higher, I don't know about you, but an order of magnitude is pretty significant in my book.
Not only that, even common sense observations confirm at least 3 times higher fatality rate compared to the worst flu: Every years approx. 45000 people die from flu in US. Within 1.5 months since the surge number of deaths reached 80000. According to various estimates number of deaths in US will reach 150 thousands. So already, with all the precautions it is 3 times deadlier. Without precautions we'd have 2-3 times higher rate.
> The other poster already pointed out that there is a difference between CFR and IFR
I know the difference between CFR and IFR. But i doubt journalists who wrote about covid-19 fatality knew that, such details are too technical for mainstream media. The idea conveyed by media was simply 'most people would get it as there is no immunity, and there is ~5% fatality rate'.
In that time we already have order of magnitude lower IFR estimates from WHO (e.g. from covid-19 situation report 30).
> we have estimates of the IFR which are more in line with 0.9 to 1.5% (based on the antibody tests in NYC for example).
In different areas it seems to be different. NYC was hit particularly bad, so it is not a good idea to generalize data from that. In Heinsberg (Germany) study, the IFR is estimated to be 0.37, although Heinsberg was also hit hard.
> The IFR for the flu is 0.1% in the bad year ... That's 10 times higher, I don't know about you, but an order of magnitude is pretty significant in my book.
I did not compare covid-19 to flu. It is true that covid-19 is order of magnitue worse than seasonal flu. My point was that it is order of magnitude better than media image of covid-19.
The articles I’ve seen talking about this usually explain that other severe illnesses can cause such symptoms.
The unusual thing about the coronavirus is that it causes severe illness in so many - resulting in not only an extraordinary number of deaths but also of other damage to the body.
That's because bad news sells, and no news doesn't.
"But 87 years ago, on 18 April 1930, the BBC's news announcer had nothing to communicate. "There is no news," was the script of the 20:45 news bulletin, before piano music was played for the rest of the 15-minute segment."
I can still remember, on an evening back in the 1980s, newscaster Gerrick Utley commenting on “this particularly slow news day.” Even as a dumb kid, I understood that to be a good thing. But I couldn’t have guessed how much I’d pine for another one like it the way I do now.
During the height of the HIV epidemic, I was a teenager. A close family friend, and one of my middle school teachers died of pneumonia. The virus compromised their immune systems, that is, AIDS, and that condition led to their susceptibility to pneumonia.
We've largely addressed HIV through various treatments and education (what you might call "fear-mongering" about shared needles and unprotected sex). HIV doesn't cause an obvious symptomatic response -- much like many people's experience with the novel coronavirus. But it weakens the immune system and other, otherwise harmless, infections take root and can cause significant harm.
If you haven’t had it you won’t understand. I can’t swim but if you’re a swimmer you might understand a parallel - it’s like not being able to swim - your head bobbing on water surface, sometimes you can breathe other times you are just gasping. If you’re in water the people will see you’re drowning and a life guard will pull you out.
Pneumonia is this “almost drowning” for weeks!and then bring barely able to breathe for months.
Again: fear is exactly the right response to pneumonia!