[timb64]

No, I have actually spent some time checking about the smoking since it does seem to strongly predict complications, but I haven't found anything. AFAIK it's not considered an underlying condition by itself which complicates finding out.


As per the second possibility, doubt it but possible I guess? For some cases an undiagnosed previous condition was reported as taking part, but not for the ones I mentioned. As for the third one, we cannot say yet...

The end result is that, regardless of the reason, there is a non-zero chance of someone young passing away of this.

Without making light of the situation there’s zero chance of anyone not dying of something.But do most people spend as much time worrying about one particular small cause?

[Serkevan]

Without making light of the situation there’s zero chance of anyone not dying of something.But do most people spend as much time worrying about one particular small cause?

With respect; this is by far the most probable danger near my family at the moment, saying that young people can die of this is honestly not a controversial statement in need of an interrogation, and calling it "small cause" is making light of the situation.

[timb64]

I’m sorry you feel the virus is the most probable danger near your family at the moment.Take some time out of your worries and consider the numbers here,particularly the Health section.

https://www.worldometers.info/

[Serkevan]

I’m sorry you feel the virus is the most probable danger near your family at the moment.Take some time out of your worries and consider the numbers here,particularly the Health section.

Worldometer - real time world statistics

And with this display of both missing the point and not knowing anything about epidemics, I'm out.

[timb64]

And with this display of both missing the point and not knowing anything about epidemics, I'm out.

Over 22,00 people starved to death TODAY!

Perspective,I’m out too!

[photoptimist]

I am not painting journalists with a broad brush - I am painting scientists (or experts of any kind). In my experience we, frankly, suck at explaining stuff without making it an unintelligible mess.

Indeed!

The core challenge for scientists is in helping people understand when their intuition, experience, and common sense are simply wrong and will lead to death and disaster.

It's only natural for most people to trust their senses and their experiences in making decisions. They might easily and naturally think: "I feel fine, everyone I know feels fine, the flu isn't so bad, and my great country has a great healthcare system. Ergo there's no need for me to worry or change anything in my life because of some weird foreign virus in a weird foreign land."

The epidemiologist looks at the data from China and other countries, sees how fast the infection is doubling, sees the rate of hospitalization and ICU usage, knows that no one is immune, knows there's no treatment or vaccine (and that such things take lots of time), knows how many millions of vulnerable people their are in their country, knows how few hospital beds/ICUs there are, does a wee bit of math and knows just how bad things can get if the infection isn't slowed ASAP. To the epidemiologist, the results are as predictable (and historically repeatable from past epidemics) as those from jumping off a 100 story building -- things don't see so bad as the jumper passes floor 90, floor 80, floor 70, etc. but......

However, convincing people is hard because they don't have the math or experience to understand how epidemics work. The scientist is asking people to trust math they've never heard of rather than their gut and experiences they've used all their lives. It's a tough sell!

[Parallax]

Mortality is unclear at this point. The best statistical analysis I saw yet predicted something around 3%.

Its 3% worldwide, so the real number is lower. All the people who were about to die are included in the 3%

It's actually much lower than that.
That's 3% of the known cases. Most estimates put the known cases at somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of actual cases, making the mortality rate (assuming the estimates are correct) somewhere between .3% and .6%. That's roughly equal to influenza.

[aslyfox]

another attempt at levity as a break from the current trend of this thread

valuable information gained from " The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

" Lessons learned from Great Literature "

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/14-general-talk/404566-lesson-learned-gr...ml#post4947861

[Serkevan]

However, convincing people is hard because they don't have the math or experience to understand how epidemics work. The scientist is asking people to trust math they've never heard of rather than their gut and experiences they've used all their lives. It's a tough sell!

The scientist is, as well, talking in science-y words which are both confusing (and can mean something completely different* from what one might think!) and far less self-assured-sounding than what the regular person is used to from, well, most politicians.


*Do not get me started on "elastic" after a master's thesis on rheology...

[WorksAsIntended]

It's actually much lower than that.
That's 3% of the known cases. Most estimates put the known cases at somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of actual cases, making the mortality rate (assuming the estimates are correct) somewhere between .3% and .6%. That's roughly equal to influenza.

No, the mathematical model is not that stupid. Of course there is a assumed dark number going into it.
Despite, the flue, if it would come that quickly, would be a pandemic too. Mortality in Italy spikes because the hospitals cannot handle it anymore. If we have the same overload in other areas, mortality will spike too. Than of course there are those people dying of hard infarct that would survive if there were a free bed at intensive care, etc.
The whole, calm down, it's not worse than the flue song does not get the point of the threat, not at all.

---------- Post added 03-19-20 at 10:33 AM ----------

The scientist is, as well, talking in science-y words which are both confusing (and can mean something completely different* from what one might think!) and far less self-assured-sounding than what the regular person is used to from, well, most politicians.


*Do not get me started on "elastic" after a master's thesis on rheology...

A good point, the scientist makes a statement with known assumptions and boundary conditions, the press often takes the result free of its context as general thesis. One of the reason so many people loat trust in science is this mechanism. Most of the time something "got proved wrong", the boundary conditions are just different ones.

[photoptimist]

It's actually much lower than that.
That's 3% of the known cases. Most estimates put the known cases at somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of actual cases,

Correct.

making the mortality rate (assuming the estimates are correct) somewhere between .3% and .6%. That's roughly equal to influenza.

Both incorrect and misleading on five counts:

1) The rate of the flu is down around 0.1% -- COVID-19 is at least 3X to 6X worse

2) The rate of the flu is also a "known cases" rate -- the COVID-19-to-flu ratio is worse than 3X to 6X

3) The flu has much more limited spread due to vaccination and herd immunity -- COVID-19 can infect a larger % of the population

4) The flu has a lower rate of hospitalization -- COVID-19 will send a greater percentage and much greater numbers to the hospital

5) The healthcare system is large enough (barely) to handle the flu -- uncontained COVID-19 has the potential to overwhelm hospitals and have a much higher rate of death due to lack of treatment.

[Parallax]

No, the mathematical model is not that stupid.

I'd suggest checking South Korea's stats. They have an aggressive testing program that identifies a much higher percentage of cases relative to the population. Even at that it's reasonable to assume that they can't catch them all. Their death rate of known cases is 1%.
South Korea Coronavirus: 8,565 Cases and 91 Deaths - Worldometer

[Wheatfield]

The scientist is, as well, talking in science-y words which are both confusing (and can mean something completely different* from what one might think!) and far less self-assured-sounding than what the regular person is used to from, well, most politicians.


*Do not get me started on "elastic" after a master's thesis on rheology...

We've also had a number of leaders over the past few years telling us with great confidence to distrust science and scientists and to trust what they say rather than what we see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears, and shouting down any media that they don't agree with.
This just makes things like pandemics all the more dangerous.

[Parallax]

We've also had a number of leaders over the past few years telling us with great confidence to distrust science and scientists and to trust what they say

Oh come on. Nobody in a position of power would do something so irresponsible.

[Wheatfield]

Correct.

Both incorrect and misleading on five counts:

1) The rate of the flu is down around 0.1% -- COVID-19 is at least 3X to 6X worse

2) The rate of the flu is also a "known cases" rate -- the COVID-19-to-flu ratio is worse than 3X to 6X

3) The flu has much more limited spread due to vaccination and herd immunity -- COVID-19 can infect a larger % of the population

4) The flu has a lower rate of hospitalization -- COVID-19 will send a greater percentage and much greater numbers to the hospital

5) The healthcare system is large enough (barely) to handle the flu -- uncontained COVID-19 has the potential to overwhelm hospitals and have a much higher rate of death due to lack of treatment.

The coronavirus is also much more virulent than the common flu. It is much easier to be infected by it.
I'm lucky that I live in a fairly sparsely populated area, and the education mostly beat the virus here. Social distancing has become very well entrenched in our habits already.
I'm not blase about it, but I am optimistic.

---------- Post added Mar 19th, 2020 at 11:47 AM ----------

Oh come on. Nobody in a position of power would do something so irresponsible.

Of course.