Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not an expert by any means but I suspect that the Mortality rate is lower than what they have said.

We've been told that the majority of people will get very mild symptoms if they have it. So the actual number of people that have been infected is way higher since many will never even think of going to a doctor.

So the 2-3% case fatality rate is higher than the actual number. If the number of deaths is correct or close to correct.

The scary part is that the virus is so easily spread between humans so the number of deaths will skyrocket when compared to other epidemics. Let's hope they bring it under control soon and there's a vaccine in the near future.



The problem here will not be the virus, but the healthcare system capacity (I.e. the hospitals capacity).

I.e. If you managed to get care, the mortality rate is X, but without care, it is 10X or even more.

So to judge the current mortality rate, you have to know how many of the infected received care.

I also assume that hospitals are like the phone system. I.e. they do not expect mass load at the same time.


That would be a very valuable number. What is the actual number of people that need to be hospitalized for this virus vs other epidemics?


Based on what I read (mainly a very good analysis of first patient in the US), I think 100%, as everyone would need oxygen, as the virus infect the lungs (even with no preconditions).

And this is on a healthy, young patient.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191


No, not everyone who contracts this virus ends up with pneumonia and needing a respirator.

But it’s still a sufficient proportion to serve as a denial-of-service attack on hospitals, if the virus spreads throughout the community.


The scary part is "acute cardiac injury" being a frequent complication. The virus causes heart attacks!

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

"Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died."


Believe it or not, this can happen infrequently with "ordinary" viruses: viral myocarditis (inflammation and infection of the heart muscle) is an under-appreciated killer of the young, with a mortality rate of between 25-50% [1] and is a well-known complication of, for example, influenza [2]. In fact, it's believed that myocarditis was involved in as much as 50% of Spanish flu fatalities in the early part of the 20th century. The difference is that if you're young and healthy, you're likely to clear infections well before they get to the point of systemically infecting each organ.

In the population of those who are acutely unwell with this novel virus, you have to remember that there is a massive selection bias for those hospital doctors to see the sickest people. Myocarditis is unfortunately one of those things that is therefore probably to some degree expected. The real question is "what is the probability that you end up in this terrible situation given you are infected with coronavirus" -- and in order to do that, you need a good estimate of how many people have been infected (but not died or seriously ill!) with the novel coronavirus. This is very hard to do in Wuhan, and estimates vary by orders of magnitude.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370379/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533457/


(from the article) 80% of people who died were over 60 years old and 75% had underlying health conditions including cardiovascular problems, so the fact that the virus caused fatal cardiovascular events in some of those cases is not unexpected.


About 80% of Americans over 60 have cardiovascular problems, compared to a third of elderly Chinese people. That stat indicates that fatality rates could be higher in the US (and other western countries, although I don't have those numbers immediately) than China.

https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd...

https://www.jwatch.org/na48562/2019/03/05/china-cardiovascul...


These are from earlier small scale studies, I believe this study has much larger cohort (1000+ patients)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021675v...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: