
I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad - throwaway9980
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/28/i-have-coronavirus-so-far-it-isnt-that-bad/
======
anonAndOn
I think the author forgot the punchline. "As one of the first few people to
arrive in the US of A under quarantine, I survived with a team of hazmat clad
expert clinicians and round the clock medical care in a biocontainment
facility and you can, too!"

~~~
koheripbal
It reminds me of some of the social media that came out of Wuhan. ...people
begging for care for their loved ones, only to watch them die at home or in
the waiting rooms because no respirators or beds were available.

Once respirators run out, the fatality rate jumps from 2% to 5%.

------
Johnny555
While it's nice to hear from someone that's recovering well, this blog doesn't
give me much solace since it's a form of selection bias. The people that have
COVID-19 and are intubated and on a respirator in a hospital likely aren't
blogging about it.

~~~
koheripbal
Given that 10-15% of people that get it end up in the ICU on a mechanical
respirator, and that even those that survive end up with permanent lung
damage, I would argue that selection bias at a time like this is almost
criminally negligent reporting.

~~~
humaniania
Where did you get those statistics from? And do you have a reference for that
lung damage claim?

~~~
koheripbal
[https://covid19data.com/2020/02/14/heres-what-coronavirus-
do...](https://covid19data.com/2020/02/14/heres-what-coronavirus-does-to-the-
body/)

~~~
humaniania
That appears to be a clickbait SEO blog. I couldn't find any primary sources
for your claims. Did you have a link?

------
scarmig
"So far" is doing a bit of work, but ignoring that...

We know that COVID-19 has a high mortality rate (and a high rate of requiring
ICU care). "High" doesn't mean 50% or higher; it means high compared to
influenza or high compared to the capacity the US health system is intended to
handle.

This article shouldn't be reassuring. Read this line in particular:

 _If I were at home with similar symptoms, I probably would have gone to work
as usual._

That should scare the fuck out of you.

~~~
ackbar03
um mortality rate is something like 1% ... hardly high

~~~
briffle
The regular flu is 0.1%. The 1918 pandemic had a mortality rate of 2%, and
killed 50 million people.

~~~
refurb
In 1918 the world population was 1.8B. If every single person got infected,
and the mortality rate was 2%, then that's 36M.

Something wrong with your numbers.

~~~
PostOnce
You're nitpicking for no reason; they're close approximations. maybe it was
2.1% or 1.9% maybe it was 40 million or 60 -- record keeping 1918 globally may
not have been exactly computer-perfect. There was a war being recovered from,
the world was still poor, and medical science inexact.

The GP's point stands, I think.

~~~
refurb
It’s not 1.9% or 2.1%, the fatality rate would have to be 10% for those
numbers to work.

------
lostmsu
6 people from Diamond Princess are already dead.

[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries)

~~~
LatteLazy
Just to play devil's advocate...

3711 passengers and crew on board total. 709 tested positive for COVID-19. So
sub 1% mortality for the infected. And that's in a population that's likely
much older and less fit or healthy than the rest of us. And in pretty ideal
conditions for the virus to spread (close quarters, shared living spaces etc).

~~~
molticrystal
They walk through two doors at the end of the hall, recovered or dead. For
many of them, they have only started, we'll find out the real numbers when
they have finished being sorted out.

Also there are a lot of people who are "recovered" and tested negative, but a
few days later were testing positive again. Either the testing kits are
testing for the wrong things or are defective in some way, or there is the
possibility the disease is biphasal or/and retreats to a reservoir in the
body.

~~~
LatteLazy
I haven't been able to find good sources on this, not that I'm disputing it,
plenty of other viruses remain in people's system long after they are "cured".

Either way, I think any hope of containing and exterminating the virus is long
gone. We will likely all get this eventually. The question is whether we can
manage that process so that hospitals are not overrun by the people who need
inpatient care.

------
notacoward
> Our test results had not arrived before we boarded buses for the airport

This is the part where the government really fell down. Tough on immigration,
but oblivious to the need for containment when it really matters.

------
anonsivalley652
It's not bad* for people who aren't young, old or have diabetes/lung
conditions.

~~~
liquidise
Unlike many outbreaks, covid-19 appears to disproportionately _favor_ the
young. There have been no confirmed fatalities[1] under the age of 10.

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

~~~
Johnny555
_Unlike many outbreaks, covid-19 appears to disproportionately favor the
young_

That wording seems ambiguous, from the dictionary:

 _favor - feel or show approval or preference for_

While I can see how you could say that since children are spared, the disease
"favors" them, that doesn't sound quite right. If I said "The serial killer
favors young women", I think most people would assume that young women were
his target.

------
onetimemanytime
>> _I have the coronavirus. So far, it isn 't that bad._

Poor choice of words to put in the title. AIDS isn't that bad either...until
it is.

------
gbraad
Great for him, but here in China things haven't been easy on all.

[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)

------
heligate229
still a harrowing experience. I am in my mid-forties and I am concerned.

~~~
anonsivalley652
Are you male and have a chronic cardiovascular or pulmonary condition?

\--- CFR (males and females) ---

50-59 years old 1.3%

40-49 years old 0.4%

30-39 years old 0.2%

Male 2.8% Female 1.7%

These are _averages_ across ages, and they maybe wildly inaccurate because of
the on-going situation has unknowable data on those who are sick but won't
seek help or those who will become sick before it's over.

Figure 24% higher if male, so roughly 0.5% (1/200) or 24% lower if female 0.3%
(1/300) if female, and average health for both. Health condition makes it too
unpredictable to guess further, but good health appears strongly correlated
with good outcomes and vice-versa.

~~~
tristanj
You do realize that if those death rates [0] hold up, when you take today's
global population by age demographic and tally up how many people are expected
to die within each age group, you get a total of 90 million dead.

Given that top epidemiologists are predicting 40-70% of adults will be
infected this year, that would mean roughly 35 to 62 million people would die
this year.

I would consider that a harrowing experience.

[0] I assume you got them from here
[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-
se...](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-
demographics/)

[1] [https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-
being/prevention-c...](https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-
being/prevention-cures/482794-officials-say-the-cdc-is-preparing-for)

~~~
beatgammit
That sounds like a lot of people, but it's not likely to cause real,
noticeable problems in society. I think there's a good chance that our
reaction to the virus is more damaging than the virus itself.

If 40-70% of people will be infected this year and 35-62 million will die,
that's 1-1.5% death rate. The average person will probably know a few people
that die from it, but the average person probably knows hundreds of people.
This is going to be similar to the number that die from car accidents or HIV,
and neither of those have wrecked society. It's going to be sad, but probably
won't change life as we know it, unless we let it.

Personally, I think we're all overreacting a bit, and the overreaction is
what's going to cause the problems, not the disease. The Spanish flu caused
problems, but that was ~10x deadlier than COVID-19. We all just need to worry
less and be a little more proactive about visiting the doctor.

------
hurricanetc
I have the coronavirus- So far, I am dead.

-3,000 other people including many who were on the cruise ship with this guy.

------
glenvdb
>My chest feels tight, and I have coughing spells. If I were at home with
similar symptoms, I probably would have gone to work as usual.

This makes me legitimately angry. If you are sick, please stay home, I don't
care if you feel "well enough to work". Keep your viruses away from me and
everyone else you work with. You're not getting any brownie points for "being
a trooper", everyone is just going to be annoyed at you for getting them sick.

~~~
scarmig
You are also harming other people when you do; maybe your immune system is all
fine and dandy, but plenty of people don't have that luxury. Going to work
despite feeling sick means you think your desire to portray yourself as a hard
worker takes priority over other people's lives.

~~~
webninja
Boss doesn’t care if I’m sick even if the rest of the office might. Deadlines
are still deadlines to him so I worked through my last 3 illnesses.

~~~
majormajor
You sure you'd get in trouble, or are you just assuming? Especially if you
still worked from home?

Possibly I've just hit the boss jackpot 11 times in a row, but I've never been
punished for staying home when sick. When I've felt capable, I've worked from
home when sick, but sometimes I haven't even done that.

Assumptions aside, the rest of the people you're endangering don't care what
your boss thinks, so, maybe everyone should reevaluate their priorities.
Bosses included.

~~~
fluffything
The irony of judging someone for "maybe assuming" that they might get in
trouble, yet completely assuming that they can work from home.

It's kind of hard to pull bricks at the building site or sell groceries at the
shop from your living room, you know, cause of the distance and all that.

------
xiphias2
I'm still not sure how we can be sure that all deaths that were counted as flu
were flu and not coronavirus.

Is a flu test run on the dead bodies?

~~~
xiphias2
Can somebody tell me why I was downvoted? This was a serious question.

I read about multiple people in the US who are not sure if they had
coronavirus or not, but didn't go testing. Also it seems like flu is supposed
until proven proven that a person has coronavirus.

------
akimball
Most cases will be like a cold. As many as 8% may require ICU care to survive.
Unless protocols improve, at least a quarter of those will die. We need a lot
more ventilators, immediately. And aggressive use of existing antivirals,
protease inhibitors, with thorough data collection.

~~~
sliken
Don't have links, and there is much debate. The tricky part is people die
quicker than the recover, so any death and recovery totals measured on the
same day are measuring different populations.

But as people learn more they are getting better ideas on the disease
progression. Every number has many assumptions built into it.

Seems like very little is known about how many people have had it and were
either asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. So the actual mortality rate is
highly debated, without much real info. Not enough testing kits anywhere (in
particular the USA and China) is making this difficult. Even with testing it's
hard because and unknown number of people can just shrug it off.

But if you do go to the hospital and they are completely overwhelmed, treating
people in hallways, etc the death rate is 10%. There were times in Wuhan where
this was true.

If somewhat overwhelmed, able to treat, but not put on a full ventilator, but
able to do supportive care (anti-virals, fluids, oxygen, etc) looks like the
mortality rate (again for those that go to the hospital) is under 5%. Wuhan
has been like this for some days now.

For those that go to the hospital where they aren't overwhelmed and you can
get full supportive care up to and including a full ventilator the mortality
rate, again for those that go to a hospital, is under 1%. This is seen in
numerous countries that have very few cases.

~~~
scarmig
To add on to your point, this is an argument for taking it very seriously
right now, not shrugging it off. Good policy decisions right now can save lots
of lives; a million people requiring hospitalization over a year is far, far
better than a million people requiring hospitalization over three months.
Slowing down the rate of infection isn't just kicking the can down the road,
but something that will save countless lives.

~~~
bsder
Also, the longer you can put this off, you get outside of flu season, and the
better weather probably helps fight against everything.

~~~
sliken
Corona virus seems plenty happy to infect people in warmer climates.

