Not according to the data from NYC. The risk is about 0.3% (deaths divided by confirmed cases).
But, that's for age 18-44, without all the other factors that Scott talks about. And, it doesn't account for the actual probability they would catch the virus.
To put the risk into perspective, in 2016 the probability of a 35-year-old dying from ANY cause (illness, accident, suicide, homicides) in their 35th year was 0.2%. So that means catching COVID-19 would increase our mythical 35-year-old's chance of dying this year by 150%, because your risk increased from 0.2% to 0.5%.
However, don't take this as disagreement with Scott. I think he's right, if everyone actually did all the things he proposes. I'll add one more: a temperature check when you arrive and when you leave. This would be especially effective in occupations that don't interact with customers all day.
But in all honesty, what do you think would be the level of compliance? All you have to do is read through the comments on TD.win about wearing a facemask.
We don't have any other metric than confirmed cases, at least until the antibody tests are applied widely. That's true for any communicable disease that ranges from no symptoms to death.
When comparing COVID-19 to influenza deaths, the number of influenza cases are only confirmed cases as well.
But we do have the metric of .2% from 2016. What is the overall death rate for 35 year olds today in NYC? The increase would give us a more relevant death rate due to the COVID-19 epidemic.
I don't think it will be immediately, but we are on the path to do so: the FDA approved an antibody test in the past few days.
With enough randomized testing, we will be able to estimate how many people were exposed and developed an immune response, with or without symptoms. That will help with the decision process going forward.
NYC has the best set of data at the moment, due to their infection rate (because it's over populated). There's no reason to think their mortality rate would be higher (as a percentage of confirmed cases).
But, I agree with you in general: what's appropriate for NYC isn't necessarily appropriate for the rest of the country.
I live on the edge of a large metroplex. We aren't free of cases, but we don't have the large numbers of the core cities. So, I don't think we need the same level of measures.
But some of the adjacent cities that WERE seeing the same level of infection were refusing to address it. So, we ended up with a county-wide order, then a state-wide order. I don't think it's necessary out in the middle of nowhere (we have a lot of that here), but people just can't seem to deal with ambiguity.
I think Scott's suggestion is a good one. People that work in jobs where they aren't stacked on top of each other and wear masks to protect themselves can go back to work.... especially in the suburbs where there are vast numbers of office workers.
I cited the mortality rates in NYC to make it clear: those people going back to work would still be at risk. We can't ignore that.
NY is reporting everyone who dies WITH COVID-19 as dying FROM COVID-19.
In Italy, they do the same thing. Only 12% of the deaths had no pre-morbidity. So divide the number of deaths in NY by 10 to get a more accurate number.
The same thing is done with influenza. If they tested positive for influenza, that's considered the reason for it.
Being sick with something else doesn't mean you would have died today if you had never caught COVID-19. If you would have died a year from now, most people would consider an extra year of life to be desirable.
From three different sources from three different studies I've seen that about 95% of the people who get the virus never get tested. Either they have no symptoms or the symptoms are very light.
So take that 0.3% and divide it by 20.
Also, we know for a fact that the young simply don't die from this. The old do. So if you're younger than 60, your chance of death after getting it is practically zero, while the elderly have a slightly higher risk.
NY is also reporting anyone who dies WITH COVID-19 as dying DUE TO COVID-19. In Italy, they report the numbers the same way, and an analysis of deaths found only 12% had no pre-morbidity. Thus, we probably need to take that number and divide it by 10.
Now you're at numbers that are slightly lower than the risk of dying from the flu.
It's the same for influenza: a large percentage never get tested. But despite that, we still have deaths from influenza.
And no, you don't know for a fact that young don't die from this. I cited the statistics. It's small, but it's not zero. And it's comparable to death from ALL OTHER CAUSES.
You don't get to explain away a death from COVID-19 just because they had some other condition. If COVID-19 accelerates a person's death, most people would consider that to be a loss.
No, I know for a fact that young people don't die from COVID-19. Because, looking at the reported cases of deaths WITH COVID-19, they all had some other condition that likely caused the death. In the case of the recent infant reported death, the baby was suffocated.
Begone shill. We only deal with facts here, not fantasy.
In my area, there have been several deaths of people in their 30's with no prior health conditions. But, it doesn't matter if they had pre-existing conditions. If COVID-19 shortens someone's life by a year, that's a loss.
There are people with pre-existing conditions that go (or at least went) to work every day to provide for their family. They manage it with medical treatment, instead of dying prematurely or being disabled. If something comes along to disrupt that, it's the primary cause.
I've been trying to bring some actual facts into this discussion. That doesn't make me a "shill". Do you accuse everyone that disagrees with you at work to be a shill? How do your friends react when you call them a shill because they dared to tell you an uncomfortable truth?
No, it’s less than .5, .3 percent of people infected die, not everyone will get infected, and the .3 is an overestimate due to not capturing all benign cases of the Chinese disease
Not according to the data from NYC. The risk is about 0.3% (deaths divided by confirmed cases).
But, that's for age 18-44, without all the other factors that Scott talks about. And, it doesn't account for the actual probability they would catch the virus.
To put the risk into perspective, in 2016 the probability of a 35-year-old dying from ANY cause (illness, accident, suicide, homicides) in their 35th year was 0.2%. So that means catching COVID-19 would increase our mythical 35-year-old's chance of dying this year by 150%, because your risk increased from 0.2% to 0.5%.
However, don't take this as disagreement with Scott. I think he's right, if everyone actually did all the things he proposes. I'll add one more: a temperature check when you arrive and when you leave. This would be especially effective in occupations that don't interact with customers all day.
But in all honesty, what do you think would be the level of compliance? All you have to do is read through the comments on TD.win about wearing a facemask.
The problem with deaths divided by confirmed cases is selection bias. It's the wrong denominator.
Exactly.
The other problem is not taking any treatments into account in the death rate.
We don't have any other metric than confirmed cases, at least until the antibody tests are applied widely. That's true for any communicable disease that ranges from no symptoms to death.
When comparing COVID-19 to influenza deaths, the number of influenza cases are only confirmed cases as well.
Confirmed cases includes “presumed positive”, so it is a misnomer.
But we do have the metric of .2% from 2016. What is the overall death rate for 35 year olds today in NYC? The increase would give us a more relevant death rate due to the COVID-19 epidemic.
Exactly...we don’t have any metric....we need one ASAP
I don't think it will be immediately, but we are on the path to do so: the FDA approved an antibody test in the past few days.
With enough randomized testing, we will be able to estimate how many people were exposed and developed an immune response, with or without symptoms. That will help with the decision process going forward.
Oh, your example is NYC? The grossly over-populated shit-stain of a place to live? Horrible example.
Quarantine the big cities, and let America get back to work
NYC has the best set of data at the moment, due to their infection rate (because it's over populated). There's no reason to think their mortality rate would be higher (as a percentage of confirmed cases).
But, I agree with you in general: what's appropriate for NYC isn't necessarily appropriate for the rest of the country.
I live on the edge of a large metroplex. We aren't free of cases, but we don't have the large numbers of the core cities. So, I don't think we need the same level of measures.
But some of the adjacent cities that WERE seeing the same level of infection were refusing to address it. So, we ended up with a county-wide order, then a state-wide order. I don't think it's necessary out in the middle of nowhere (we have a lot of that here), but people just can't seem to deal with ambiguity.
I think Scott's suggestion is a good one. People that work in jobs where they aren't stacked on top of each other and wear masks to protect themselves can go back to work.... especially in the suburbs where there are vast numbers of office workers.
I cited the mortality rates in NYC to make it clear: those people going back to work would still be at risk. We can't ignore that.
NY is reporting everyone who dies WITH COVID-19 as dying FROM COVID-19.
In Italy, they do the same thing. Only 12% of the deaths had no pre-morbidity. So divide the number of deaths in NY by 10 to get a more accurate number.
The same thing is done with influenza. If they tested positive for influenza, that's considered the reason for it.
Being sick with something else doesn't mean you would have died today if you had never caught COVID-19. If you would have died a year from now, most people would consider an extra year of life to be desirable.
And blow the bridges ala I Am Legend.
From three different sources from three different studies I've seen that about 95% of the people who get the virus never get tested. Either they have no symptoms or the symptoms are very light.
So take that 0.3% and divide it by 20.
Also, we know for a fact that the young simply don't die from this. The old do. So if you're younger than 60, your chance of death after getting it is practically zero, while the elderly have a slightly higher risk.
NY is also reporting anyone who dies WITH COVID-19 as dying DUE TO COVID-19. In Italy, they report the numbers the same way, and an analysis of deaths found only 12% had no pre-morbidity. Thus, we probably need to take that number and divide it by 10.
Now you're at numbers that are slightly lower than the risk of dying from the flu.
It's the same for influenza: a large percentage never get tested. But despite that, we still have deaths from influenza.
And no, you don't know for a fact that young don't die from this. I cited the statistics. It's small, but it's not zero. And it's comparable to death from ALL OTHER CAUSES.
You don't get to explain away a death from COVID-19 just because they had some other condition. If COVID-19 accelerates a person's death, most people would consider that to be a loss.
No, I know for a fact that young people don't die from COVID-19. Because, looking at the reported cases of deaths WITH COVID-19, they all had some other condition that likely caused the death. In the case of the recent infant reported death, the baby was suffocated.
Begone shill. We only deal with facts here, not fantasy.
In my area, there have been several deaths of people in their 30's with no prior health conditions. But, it doesn't matter if they had pre-existing conditions. If COVID-19 shortens someone's life by a year, that's a loss.
There are people with pre-existing conditions that go (or at least went) to work every day to provide for their family. They manage it with medical treatment, instead of dying prematurely or being disabled. If something comes along to disrupt that, it's the primary cause.
I've been trying to bring some actual facts into this discussion. That doesn't make me a "shill". Do you accuse everyone that disagrees with you at work to be a shill? How do your friends react when you call them a shill because they dared to tell you an uncomfortable truth?
Nitpicking, but going from 0.2% to 0.3% is a 50% increase, not a 150% increase.
It's additive.
If your chance of dying this year was already 0.2%, and you add a new condition that has a risk of 0.3%, your risk is now 0.5%.
It won't be exact, because there is some overlap.
You're right. My brain totally failed.
Nah, I probably should have been more clear about that.
No, it’s less than .5, .3 percent of people infected die, not everyone will get infected, and the .3 is an overestimate due to not capturing all benign cases of the Chinese disease