Can this be true? Less than 1% of CV deats have no comorbidity

[Bullseye]

IF this data is true, it could be a game changer

Patients who reported no pre-existing ("comorbid") medical conditions had a case fatality rate of 0.9%. Pre-existing illnesses that put patients at higher risk of dying from a COVID-19 infection are:
COVID-19 Fatality Rate by COMORBIDITY:
.

*Death Rate = (number of deaths / number of cases) = probability of dying if infected by the virus (%). This probability differs depending on pre-existing condition. The percentage shown below does NOT represent in any way the share of deaths by pre-existing condition. Rather, it represents, for a patient with a given pre-existing condition, the risk of dying if infected by COVID-19

 

[Slavister]

How is this a game changer exactly? Does 0.9% seem negligible to you?

If we had 200,000,000 infected without any pre-existing conditions, we'd have 1.8 Million deaths based on these numbers... of course if you pick 200,000,000 people in this country, guess the chances that none of them would have pre-existing conditions.

Lastly, this is just deaths... guess the percentage of people that get hospitalized.

 

[swing_voter]

Age is a huge game changer.

Your gender is too.

As is obesity. Obesity leads to diabetes and heart disease.

 

[Captain Adverse]

IF this data is true, it could be a game changer



View attachment 67277723

In each case the immune system has been significantly degraded by a pre-existing medical condition, which was already known to be a major factor in the general morbidity of anyone UNDER the age of 70.

Those over the age of 70 have a higher morbidity simply because in most cases they already have an immune system that has degraded due to nearing the end of the human life-cycle. Years of over-eating, smoking, drinking, exposure to combinations of medicines prescribed to combat various ills which also serve to degrade the immune system, all coupled with simple normal wear-and-tear place them in the highest risk category.

So I don't see anything startlingly new in these statistics.

 

[Grand Mal]

IF this data is true, it could be a game changer



View attachment 67277723

I don't get it. Why does this change anything? You get any disease on top of a pre-existing illness and you'll likely fare worse than a healthy person getting the same disease.

 

[Bullseye]

In each case the immune system has been significantly degraded by a pre-existing medical condition, which was already known to be a major factor in the morbidity of anyone UNDER the age of 70.

Those over the age of 70 have a higher morbidity simply because in most cases they already have an immune system that has degraded due to nearing the end of the human life-cycle. Years of over-eating, smoking, drinking, exposure to combinations of medicines prescribed to combat various ills which also serve to degrade the immune system, all coupled with simple normal wear-and-tear place them in the highest risk category.

So I don't see anything new in these statistics.

Not new but under-appreciated, I think.

 

[Lord of Planar]

IF this data is true, it could be a game changer



View attachment 67277723

Yes, it's true. That's why this is blown out of proportion. Let the people with preexisting conditions quarantine themselves, instead of damaging the economy over this.

We have known all along what the comorbidity causes are. These draconian measures are completely unwarranted.

Also...

They aren't doing autopsies when the death is ruled from COVID-19. That 0.9% probably has an unreported condition already, that an autopsy would show.

 

[lwf]

IF this data is true, it could be a game changer

View attachment 67277723

How many people die period that don't have more than one underlying health issue?

 

[Bullseye]

I don't get it. Why does this change anything? You get any disease on top of a pre-existing illness and you'll likely fare worse than a healthy person getting the same disease.

It would suggest maybe considering relaxing stay-at-home restrictions, for instance. And yes, caution has to be taken that vulnerable people don't get infected by others who are working and mixing in public.

There's no perfect answer - including our current isolation. This info is just another piece in the grand puzzle.

 

[Bullseye]

How many people die period that don't have more than one underlying health issue?

Lots of data at the link; browse around.

 

[JasperL]

Yes, it's true. That's why this is blown out of proportion. Let the people with preexisting conditions quarantine themselves, instead of damaging the economy over this.

We have known all along what the comorbidity causes are. These draconian measures are completely unwarranted.

Also...

They aren't doing autopsies when the death is ruled from COVID-19. That 0.9% probably has an unreported condition already, that an autopsy would show.

OK, so the people weren't aware of any pre-existing conditions, which is an argument to open up the economy so 1% of those who thought they were healthy could get sick and die, thinking they were safe, which wouldn't be more than a million or so people, so no biggee, right?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Not new but under-appreciated, I think.

I think every one who has paid any attention to this understands and appreciates those stats.

I have a 1% chance of dieing from it. If I caught it. My mother has a 10 % chance given her age.

Now I know you will say we should just protect the most likely to die. But consider they often need assistance and if there assistant is infected then the old person is likely to get infected and have a high chance of dieing.

 

[Michael Cole]

It would suggest maybe considering relaxing stay-at-home restrictions, for instance. And yes, caution has to be taken that vulnerable people don't get infected by others who are working and mixing in public.

There's no perfect answer - including our current isolation. This info is just another piece in the grand puzzle.

This is a poor guide in doing what you suggest. Age would be a much better criterion. Indeed, for the most part, these pre-existing conditions correlate with age. And the numbers are ambiguous. I have high blood pressure but only 8.4% die from CV. Should I be allowed back to work?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Yes, it's true. That's why this is blown out of proportion. Let the people with preexisting conditions quarantine themselves, instead of damaging the economy over this.

We have known all along what the comorbidity causes are. These draconian measures are completely unwarranted.

Also...

They aren't doing autopsies when the death is ruled from COVID-19. That 0.9% probably has an unreported condition already, that an autopsy would show.

How aboit old folks homes? They often have a lot of care provided by staff, if the staff is infected then 10 % of the old fols hone can be expected to die

 

[Lord of Planar]

How many people die period that don't have more than one underlying health issue?

The point here is that if you are free of any of those conditions, the likelihood of you dying from catching COVID-19 is next to none.

That's why it is irresponsible for all these business shutdowns by the states. This pandemic, though technically a pandemic, doesn't kill a percentage of everyone. Just a percentage of those with certain preexisting conditions.

Lift all the restrictions, and educate people as to who needs to remain in isolation.

 

[lwf]

Yes, it's true. That's why this is blown out of proportion. Let the people with preexisting conditions quarantine themselves, instead of damaging the economy over this.

We have known all along what the comorbidity causes are. These draconian measures are completely unwarranted.

Also...

They aren't doing autopsies when the death is ruled from COVID-19. That 0.9% probably has an unreported condition already, that an autopsy would show.

The measures are not draconian. Shelter in place orders are on the honor system. You can still go to the store, take walks, and visit relatives. It is a good idea to reduce the frequency of these things and to practice social distancing when do engage in them, but no one is going to arrest you if you don't unless you are intentionally putting vulnerable people at risk. Closing unnecessary places of gathering is not draconian during a pandemic. Isolation is the only way to prevent a pandemic from killing large numbers of people.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How aboit old folks homes? They often have a lot of care provided by staff, if the staff is infected then 10 % of the old fols hone can be expected to die

Just have the stay at home orders affect them. Not the whole population.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The measures are not draconian. Shelter in place orders are on the honor system. You can still go to the store, take walks, and visit relatives. It is a good idea to reduce the frequency of these things and to practice social distancing when do engage in them, but no one is going to arrest you if you don't unless you are intentionally putting vulnerable people at risk. Closing unnecessary places of gathering is not draconian during a pandemic. Isolation is the only way to prevent a pandemic from killing large numbers of people.

But many businesses are mandated to close, and so many people are not working.

This is shameful. It doesn't need to be this way. If the virus killed by itself, rather than weakening a person to the point their preexisting condition kill people, then yes. These measures would make sense.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Just have the stay at home orders affect them. Not the whole population.

Retirement homes ie assisted living.

The old people might stay in the building but the workers don't. As such they can and have brought the illness into the assisted living homes

 

[Michael Cole]

The point here is that if you are free of any of those conditions, the likelihood of you dying from catching COVID-19 is next to none.

That's why it is irresponsible for all these business shutdowns by the states. This pandemic, though technically a pandemic, doesn't kill a percentage of everyone. Just a percentage of those with certain preexisting conditions.

Lift all the restrictions, and educate people as to who needs to remain in isolation.

I'm sure researchers are studying this now. When all is said and done, I expect the scientists and government construct a plan that takes all level of risk into account.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I think every one who has paid any attention to this understands and appreciates those stats.

I have a 1% chance of dieing from it. If I caught it. My mother has a 10 % chance given her age.

Now I know you will say we should just protect the most likely to die. But consider they often need assistance and if there assistant is infected then the old person is likely to get infected and have a high chance of dieing.

How about people with spouses or other family members with various conditions. I know a few who have recovered from cancer but I'm sure are more susceptible.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Retirement homes ie assisted living.

The old people might stay in the building but the workers don't. As such they can and have brought the illness into the assisted living homes

I mean the workers too. No need to have the rest of us stay at home.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

[Bullseye]

Yes, it's true. That's why this is blown out of proportion. Let the people with preexisting conditions quarantine themselves, instead of damaging the economy over this.

We have known all along what the comorbidity causes are. These draconian measures are completely unwarranted.

Also...

They aren't doing autopsies when the death is ruled from COVID-19. That 0.9% probably has an unreported condition already, that an autopsy would show.

Yes! In my opinion there has to be a way to ease some of the restrictions at acceptable risk. Here in San Diego, for instance THE OCEAN is out of bounds. Before they blocked the beaches completely SITTING on the beach was verboten but you could walk or run.

I've seen some writers suggesting sports crowds might not be a good idea - probably true for now. But a group of people shooting baskets at the park?

Somewhere along the line we're going to have to accept that there isn't enough Purell in the world to eradicate the virus. Opening up slow is the way to go, IMHO. I'd love to walk over to my favorite brewpub (yes, it is that close) and have a pint or two with the regulars, but, I'm not going to do that for a while But I will take hikes on our trials soon after they're re-opened.

 

[JasperL]

Just have the stay at home orders affect them. Not the whole population.

Sure, and their kids, and their spouses and others they interact with.

 

[Michael Cole]

But many businesses are mandated to close, and so many people are not working.

This is shameful. It doesn't need to be this way. If the virus killed by itself, rather than weakening a person to the point their preexisting condition kill people, then yes. These measures would make sense.

There's nothing shameful about caution. The economy will be fine.