Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JoeAltmaier 2085 days ago
Not necessarily. A 50-something person that rides centuries on their bike and runs half marathons, is very much at risk simply because of their age. Blame-throwing is not helpful nor correct.
3 comments

Even at 80 it only about doubles the chance they die. An 80 year old has a 5% chance of death, adding another 5% chance of death is striking no doubt, and would consider that very much at risk. 50 however...

50 year old is only about a 0.14% IFR: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2

The IFR was close to zero for people between the ages of 15 and 44, increasing to 3.1% for 65–74-year-olds and to 11.6% for anyone older. The results of the study have been posted to the medRxiv preprint server1.

"Only" doubles? Compared to what reasonable baseline?
A standard 80 year old, which is striking as stated above.

It's bad odds for sure and if 80 you wouldn't want to contract it. Only implies it's not a death sentence, roughly as dangerous as space flight.

It's not throwing blame to say that comorbidities increase risk of long-term or fatal effects.
Very much at risk, but the risk is very small.
1% chance of death and 2% chance of extended illness is not "very small". I would put those risks as "very high", since that is essentially your risk budget for the entire year.

I used to play a tabletop RPG that used percentile dice. For every action, there was a 1% chance of a miserable failure. Turns out, those cropped up quite a bit.

So, if 50, you are willing to play Russian-Roulette and pick an M&M from a jar of 100 (or even 200) when, perhaps, 1-4 of them will kill you?

I'd love to imagine (actually watching would be sadistic) a lineup of folks claiming they would, step up to the M&Ms, one after another, be told of the chances, and watch them pluck one, or step away.

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatalit...

Nope. The risk is climbing rapidly at that age.