
I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn't that bad - _wldu
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/I-have-the-coronavirus-So-far-it-isn-t-that-bad-15093664.php
======
merricksb
Earlier discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22448502](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22448502)

------
oefrha
Those who died from the virus aren’t writing in to tell us it’s very bad, so
there’s that.

Edit: To be clear, I’m not being dismissive of this patient’s experience; just
want to point out the element of survivorship bias.

~~~
40four
I think this mans perspective is important. For the vast majority of people
who get this it isn’t much different then having a cold or the flu. The large
majority of people this is killing are elderly, whose immune systems are less
likely to successfully defend.

[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-
se...](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-
demographics/)

But that is not the picture painted by media day in and day out. There is so
much hype and sensationalism with this story. They would have us believe it’s
the zombie apocalypse out there, and I just don’t think that is the reality.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
The media mostly ignored this story for 1 entire month despite its constant
seriousness and despite it being clear that it was the biggest event of the
year so far. Only this last week has it picked up on it. For people who have
been following it from the start that fact was used as evidence that it was an
actually serious problem given that the media was constantly downplaying it or
just ignoring it.

In regards to the disease's lethality, even though most people will experience
it as just a flu, between 10% to 15% of people experience it bad enough that
they need hospital beds. If there's a generalized outbreak in the population
like there was in China hospitals will be overloaded and general chaos will
ensue, because hospitals in most countries aren't ready to deal with this kind
of surge.

~~~
dr_dshiv
So, my son had a really bad cold that resulted in an infected lymph node and a
course of antibiotics. They never ran a test for covid-19.

So, how do we know that we have anywhere close to the right number of total
patients?

Do you have any citations for these high numbers? Some statistical skepticism
is important in matters of public concern.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
[https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.18.20024539v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.18.20024539v2)
This is a paper that looks at 50k Chinese patients and 18.1% of them are
considered "severe cases", which China has been using to mean needing special
care in the hospital.

And based on a WHO official's statements they found no evidence that there was
a big number of unreported cases in China.
[https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/25/new-data-from-china-
butt...](https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/25/new-data-from-china-butt...),
[https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/123233479099875328...](https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/123233479099875328..).
Which would mean that these numbers coming out of there are likely more
correct than wrong.

~~~
dr_dshiv
From your second link:

"“What [the data] support is that sure, there may be a few asymptomatic cases
… but there’s probably not huge transmission beyond what you can actually see
clinically,” Aylward said.

The claim was quickly challenged by an infectious diseases expert who serves
on a committee that advises the WHO’s health emergencies program."

------
cm2012
That's why it's so dangerous. For 80% of people it's a mild cold. - so they go
to work like normal.

~~~
mrspeaker
This is a time where it would be preferable to live somewhere that has good
free/cheap health and social systems: if you're sick, you stay home and there
are limited social or financial repercussions.

So many people where I am will just "soldier on" because they have no choice.

~~~
emj
I'm living in such a place and if you have a cold it is normal to go to work
even if you are sick, it's really hard to make people stay at home just
because they feel a bit ill. Remote work has to be come more accepted.

~~~
loopz
There's still social stigma not being able to work 100%. Even if people were
just clerks for eachother and total Waste, the stigma would still be there.
People seem to not mind infecting others.. Except as dictated by political
correctness.

------
robin_reala
The Guardian today have another story titled “To hell and back”:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/to-hell-and-
ba...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/to-hell-and-back-my-
three-weeks-suffering-from-coronavirus)

~~~
infinity0
That's why it's important to have positive stories like this one, the media is
only focusing on the negative ones even though they only count for < 1% of the
real situations.

~~~
hef19898
Yeah, and a couple of days ago LinkedIn got spammed by "Supply Chains will
die" posts. Well, at least my feed. So yeah, a hell of a load of clickbait all
over the place. And only minority is trying to calm things down.

------
chewz
And it wouldn't be so bad for me either. But I am taking care of my 88yo Mom
and for her it might be lethal.

------
jbverschoor
And I had the flu.. it nearly killed me.

Can we please stop this nonsense

~~~
tyfon
I think after the success of the media in respect to this virus (massive
amounts of clicks and TV view time), I firmly believe that every new flu will
have it's own name and similar coverage from now on.

They just made too much money off this, fear is a big seller.

~~~
obmelvin
This is about 20x deadlier (rate, not absolute numbers) than the seasonal flu
as of midweek (numbers may have changed a bit in last few days). It is a more
apt comparison to compare to the 1918/19 Spanish flu than the seasonal flu.

edit: yes, I know the age breakdowns of deaths. But young people can still
transmit the virus to their elderly loved ones etc. I don't understand why
people are dismissive about the fact that "oh its just the old people dying,
nbd".

I guess in general, while I understand that the death rate may come down etc,
I see a far bigger risk in making people think that it isn't a big deal. I'm
not suggesting we should freak out, but I just don't understand downplaying it
either.

~~~
40four
That is a terrible talking point. It paints a picture that is not inline with
reality. It’s the only ‘evidence’ anyone can grasp to as to why this is any
more concerning than the common flu. Meanwhile the numbers are HIGHLY skewed
by age group.

It is almost exclusively killing elderly people. For anyone less than 50-60
years old, the numbers are in line with flu. And the old people will be better
protected once the vaccine comes out.

[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-
se...](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-
demographics/)

~~~
obmelvin
Yes, but honestly why does that matter when talking about the implications of
it spreading? Are you saying that old people's lives are worth less? It
doesn't diminish the _general_ threat just because you or I are less likely to
die. You or I may not be too affected, but what if I unknowingly transmitted
(as is happening) to my grandparents when I got dinner with them?

------
mensetmanusman
I almost died from the type 2 strain of flu two years ago. Was out for almost
2 weeks straight. Wife found me under every blanket in the house wearing two
coats with a 104.5 fever. I understand how this could be fatal to the elderly.
We take care that no one is sick when we visit community centers.

------
praptak
Humans are bad at gauging low probabilities. I for one cannot wrap my head
around the actual badness of an event that has 2 percent chance of getting me
killed. Taking the "average" approach, i.e. 2% loss of my expected remaining
life time doesn't seem very good.

# Yup, I know getting the virus is more than just a chance to die - you
possibly infect others, get quarantined, etc.

~~~
bart_spoon
Part of the reason humans are bad with probability is because they are bad at
conditional probabilities. There is likely much less than a 2% chance you die
from this. First that is assuming you will catch this disease. Even the most
gloom and doom projections I’ve seen are saying that this virus will infect
40-70% of the worlds population. Which means the chance that you catch this
and die from it is more like 1-1.5%. Outside of Wuhan, the death rate has been
more like .7-1%, so now it’s more like .3-.7% chance you actually catch this
and die. The numbers are far lower if you are not elderly, and have no pre-
existing conditions.

That isn’t to say the virus isn’t concerning, especially on a societal level.
We absolutely should all be taking precautions to prevent the disease from
spreading. But for a given individual, the probabilities of dying from this is
very low.

~~~
oceanplexian
> So now it’s more like .3-.7% chance you actually catch this and die

Speaking of people being bad at probabilities..

A .3-.7 chance of death is still VERY dangerous. Your odds of dying of a car
crash in any given year is 1 in 10,000. Your odds of dying from Coronavirus is
1 in 333 (at your best estimate). Yes this is absolutely serious at a societal
level, and yes, you can die from this.

------
ducttape12
I suppose any disease isn't that bad when you have round the clock medical
care pumping you full of medicine.

~~~
goatherders
No, in fact lots of diseases are incredibly bad even with round the clock
medical care pumping you full of medicine.

~~~
onetimemanytime
Sure but you can bet that CDC is caring for those few that are infected.
Meaning among the best doctors in the world so it's very unlikely that he will
die for inadequate care.

What will happen in a third world country? Or in the USA if million and
millions are infected, overwhelming the health care system?

------
asmint3
He mentioned he’s participating in the clinical trial so there’s a chance he
received Remdesivir treatment.

------
dr_dshiv
Why do we still call it "The Coronavirus", despite the fact that the common
cold is caused by coronaviruses and rhinoviruses [1]? Like, with the H1N1 flu
we had a more specific name.

Isn't it morally important to provide the public with nuance? i.e., "there is
a bad version of the common cold this year, so watch out, especially if you
are over 60".

[1] Falsey, A. R., Walsh, E. E., & Hayden, F. G. (2002). Rhinovirus and
coronavirus infection-associated hospitalizations among older adults. The
Journal of infectious diseases, 185(9), 1338-1341.

~~~
spartas
SARS-CoV-2 is that "more specific name". I agree that it didn't help that it
went without a specific name for a long period of time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2)

------
ianai
This is a pretty dismissive thread and P.O.V. The point is the combination of
all characteristics of it is bad. No one has a resistance to it because it’s
novel. It looks to have an infection rate of 2 for 1 infected. It will likely
reach huge numbers of people and kill orders of magnitude more than the usual
flu. If it gets to a billion people we’re talking tens of millions dead.

~~~
JohnStrangeII
To add to this, what some people apparently don't realize is that those who
get mild symptoms and ignore them or don't get tested and quarantined will
almost certainly infect others who might die from it. It could be your elderly
neighbor, your parents, grandparents, or an acquaintance with a compromised
immune system.

~~~
ianai
Yep and there are far too many people who will gladly come to work very sick.
I’ve suffered far too many examples in corporate America.

------
eddyg
R0=2.2 and CFR=2.5% is all you need to know to realize this is _not_ the
“seasonal flu”. Look at the visualizations in this article[0] that compare the
average number of people infected by each sick person and the fatality rate of
various historical epidemics.

[0] [https://nyti.ms/38Xc1ho](https://nyti.ms/38Xc1ho)

~~~
haunter
Still hard to believe to me that with the current numbers at least 30 million
people will die. And we are not even at 3000 yet.

------
ebiester
Let me know on day 8 or 9. That’s when you find out if you’re one of the lucky
ones to develop pneumonia.

~~~
username90
He has already had it with symptoms for 2 weeks.

------
Medicalidiot
This is dangerous. Take every precaution you can not to get infected for as
long as you can and that you don't infect anyone else. This is not the flu.
The flu makes you more susceptible to a material pneumonia and that's how it
kills. SARS-CoV-2 is NOT the flu. COVID-19 is the disease, by the way.

Here is the list of complications: -ARDS in 29% (Acute respiratory distress
disease, this needs mechanical ventilation to survive) -acute cardiac injury
in 12% (this potentially kills your heart tissue which leads to arrhythmia and
then a heart attack) -secondary infection in 10%

[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31986264-clinical-
features-o...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31986264-clinical-features-of-
patients-infected-with-2019-novel-coronavirus-in-wuhan-china/?dopt=Abstract)

This is something you should be very mindful of. A Cavalier attitude can get
you or people you care about killed.

Here's the current list of symptoms to know if you're infected with SARS-
CoV-2:

fever in 98.6% fatigue in 69.6% dry cough in 59.4% anorexia in 39.9% myalgia
in 34.8% dyspnea in 31.2% expectoration in 26.8% pharyngalgia in 17.4%
diarrhea in 10.1% nausea in 10.1% dizziness in 9.4% headache 6.5% vomiting in
3.6% abdominal pain in 2.2%

[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32031570-clinical-
characteri...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32031570-clinical-
characteristics-of-138-hospitalized-patients-with-2019-novel-coronavirus-
infected-pneumonia-in-wuhan-china/?dopt=Abstract)

~~~
sciinfo
If most people don't care to prevent infection, the hospitals and medical
resources will soon be overwhelmed, the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no
exact figure at the moment) to 10-20% like earlier in Wuhan. When viral load
in the environment becomes sufficiently high, some young people will be taken
away by it too, as in the case of several Wuhan doctors who sacrificed
themselves under that circumstance.

Among the ~16-19% who are hospitalized and recover, you may suffer through
weeks of pneumonia and your lungs could be damaged long-term.

Even if you're lucky to be among the 80% who survive without hospitalization,
you could still be the vector who directly or indirectly infect someone you
care about.

~~~
kspacewalk2
>the death rate will surge from 0.5-4% (no exact figure at the moment) to
10-20% like earlier in Wuhan

Those percentages come from different samples altogether and cannot be
compared. 10-20% is heavily biased toward people who were admitted before
there were even reliable tests for the virus or a recognition that it's novel
and serious. Now you're comparing that to 0.5-4% which includes a bunch
(though by no means close to all) of mild cases who got picked up by the tests
but may not have required a hospital visit at all. What's the point of
mentioning two numbers that aren't just unreliable and biased, but unreliable
and biased in different ways?

~~~
sciinfo
Yes, I think I might have mixed up stats of different kinds (Posting too late
at night, sorry).

However, the point stands that fatality rates will likely go up a lot if
medical resources are overwhelmed. Long-term lung damage is also another risk
for younger people and its rate will also go up.

------
tchaffee
Anecdotal. One data point shouldn't mean much to anyone.

------
101404
It's called "survivorship bias".

~~~
sonicxxg
When >98% are surviving it, it's not much of a bias.

