People also aren't factoring in that, while the death rate may be low for young healthy people, the hospitalization rate is still quite high, and recovery time is long. And the death rate even for young people goes up substantially if the hospitals are so overwhelmed that they can't even provide oxygen and nurses for young healthy people.
It is a new narrative that isn't really compatible with anything else I've heard. Which is basically that asymptomatic carriers are the norm, you are contagious even without symptoms, and this kills people in the risk pool.
So, someone making a claim that it is dangerous for non risk pool people feels like something that should be easy to back up.
That's actually been the standard story for most of the time. Dangerous mostly to at-risk individuals, but requiring ventilators for a succinct percentage of people who aren't at risk.
That's the main reason that Britain changed their tactic, and the main reason most countries are worried, especially about ventilators.
That narrative isn't final- there's a lot of unknowns. As you say, we are now thinking there are more asymptomatic people than we thought, which would be huge.
Yeah, sounds like I am just further in how I read the asymptomatic narrative. My understanding is it is now the narrative that most people that get this week barely register a cold. See the story of Greta.
Such that most people are asked to distance, since they are no risk for themselves, but extreme risk for the people in the risk pool.
I don't think that is actually the case, I hope you had quite a few you first-hand accounts of people who had it and it was not 'barely a cold'. more like 4 days in bed, still very lethargic for the next 2 or 3 days. it depends on the viral load that is received. small load = milder symptoms.
I think this is why it is so dangerous for healthcare workers, they get prolonged exposure and them by the time they become ill they have a lot of virus. if you picked it up off someone on public transport, for example, then your exposure would have been maybe 10 or 15 minutes, so you get a milder case.
Is this established? Last I heard asymptomatic was the norm. And they had no explanation for why.
Note that I am definitely not costuming this is a no risk virus. If you are in the risk pool, this is clearly deadly. They don't know what that risk pool is, though. All evidence is that kids are nigh immune to it. Older people are likely in the risk pool. But age is looking like a proxy here.
Asymptomatic people while they are infecting others doesn't mean these people will remain asymptomatic all the time. Just that at the moment they are spreading the virus they aren't having any symptoms. They can and it seems a lot of them do develop the symptoms only days later (especially once the children aren't considered).
That just means that it's hard to contain the carriers early enough to limit the growth of infection based on the symptoms. Until the antibody tests show otherwise, we can't even assume that "most will be fine" in the sense that it's not true that 20% of all infected (again, maybe excluding children) would really need the hospital.
One of the reasons 20% of all "confirmed cases" need the hospital is that the doctors can't know who of those 20% will get even worse to need the machine to be kept alive.
And no country could ever have enough doctors and machines to treat such a big part of population at once.
My question is if you are making up 20%. Especially if you consider children and younger family, it is a reasonable hypothesis that entire Italian families are getting this, not just the older members. At that point, it seems also reasonable that it could have hit many many more than they are reporting.
My hypothesis is that whatever that number is, it is not constant across regions. Something is marking it higher where it is higher. Across age ranges, even; unless Japan starts a massive upswing soon.
No. There are countries which do test all that could possibly be infected (e.g. if they were in contact with the person who was tested positive). Even then, those that are positive are the small percentages from all tested, but it‘s still that 20% from positives need the hospital.
I haven't been able to find hospitalization numbers. And this seems flat incompatible with the idea that asymptomatic is the norm. Which, I grant is the new narrative, not the old.
I have found reliable death numbers. Well, posted death numbers. Quite easy to find that. I haven't even seen any posted recovery time numbers. Just recovered. Do, not sure what to make of that.
I assume you could proxy "serious/critical" with "needs hospitalization". But, that number seems to be all over the place. From 4% to 10%. Still below 20%. So, where are you getting 20%?
> From 4% to 10%. Still below 20%. So, where are you getting 20%?
From the graphs of all countries that publish their data. Those that publish give you statistic of the number of tested, number of tested positive, those needed hospitalisation and the dead. The death happens with delay of up to two weeks, hospitalsation one. The doubling time of positive tested is 3 days typically. Calculate.
Yes, in the countries that officially label cases as such, the "serious" ones are those needing hospitalization. Others are being told to remain at home and stay isolated. Also note that even some of those who remain at home get worse later, and some die before they can be hospitalized. The major point that you have to be aware of is that the hospitalizations and deaths come later and that the doubling time is short. Also, the doubling time of 3 days means that the country which has 1/2 of the coronavirus allocated bed capacity on 1st of April won't have enough beds starting with 4th.
Also, please try to analyze as much countries (I know about European ones) as possible. Go for the official sources, or the pages in the Wikipedia on local languages, you'll find much more reliable data, and for some countries even official "in hospital" "in intensive care" and "deaths" numbers.
at that moment: "the total number of UK deaths 759, with 14,543 confirmed cases."
Now: "47,806 confirmed, 4,934 dead."
That they understand that it's going to grow more: "The National Health Service freed up 30,000 beds by discharging patients who were well enough and delaying non-emergency treatment,[342] and acquired use of 20,000 beds in private sector facilities." (wikipedia)
But they still also hope that the current measures will slow down the growth.
They test less than some countries though, but you can see the factor of hospitalizations against the deaths, and note that deaths reflect many days older (and smaller) "cases" count and hospitalizations are somewhere in between.
The time lag is a valid way of deriving this number. In places that do a lot of testing, the number does look lower than 20%. Especially considering most only test those that go to the hospital.
This is one where the nature of this virus not sending most young people to the hospital throws off that stat, heavily.
So, if they are right and most cases don't go to the hospital, then this is high. If they are wrong, and most cases do go to the hospital, then they have basically no idea how it spreads so quickly. At least, their stories are going to need massive revisions.
And again, I'm not claiming anyone wants this. Nor that I know all. Age just feels suspiciously like a proxy for whatever is upping someone's risk.
