Sorry - should have been clearer about what I was saying above.
“First this table that you are using is not associated with study that was done by the CDC/ reported cases… I am not sure where that came from but it was no part of that article or research i posted.”
This is your article in the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html
This is the study itself linked from the Times: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w
Read the study until you come to this bit: “Among 508 (12%) patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged ≥85 years, 36% were aged 65–84 years, 17% were aged 55–64 years, 18% were 45–54 years, and 20% were aged 20–44 years. Less than 1% of hospitalizations were among persons aged ≤19 years (Figure 2). The percentage of persons hospitalized increased with age, from 2%–3% among persons aged ≤19 years, to ≥31% among adults aged ≥85 years”. Immmediately following that paragraph there is a link to “Table”. Click on it and you will get the data. Or you can just scroll right down to the bottom of the study after the References and see it there.
“But the numbers there as you are using are meaningless garbage. The percent per age group that are symptomatic – is useless… if you test me today… and i test positive… but do not develop symptoms for a week or longer … i was listed as asymptomatic… you mean asymptomatic at time of test… its garbage has no value at all.”
I wasn’t making a point about symptomatic vs asymptomatic. My argument was as follows:
- The NY Times article claims young people have quite a high likelihood of getting infected based on a study of ~4,000 US patients who were tested. In order to support this claim hey show data with two specific characteristics
(i) a large number of young people with positive test results, and a smaller number of older people with psoitive test results
(ii) a very low percentage of young people who tested positive requiring ICU treatment, and a higher percentage of older people requiring ICU treatment.
As a consequence of (i), the total number of young people requiring admission to the ICU is rather closer to the total number of older people requiring admission to the ICU than might otherwise have been expected.
So if the conclusion is to hold true going forwards then you have to accept that that result (more young people becoming infected than old people) is valid. I don’t think it is valid, and is very likely to be the result of some bias in the way the tests were adminsistered. As evidence for my view here I am showing two studies. - From China, with many more patients (and where they didn’t throw half of the patients out because the age wasn’t available). This study shows older people getting the disease more than younger people.
- From the Diamond Princess where we know the data wasn’t skewed because everyone was tested. When you say:
“One other thing here… Is you fail to miss that there is a very high aging population that cruises… I doubt anyone will argue that this is not the 20 something cup of tea compared to the 55 over crowd. so that chart showing many more sick older folk , means maybe there are a lot more older folk on the ship. – really garbage data again.”
Yes of course many more old people became infected because there were more old people. However the data shows not only that there more old people as an absolute number - but that old people became infected at a greater rate. So you can see that a total of 28 people aged 20-29 became infected out of 347 people in that age group on board. 28/347 is 8%. For 60-69 year olds, 177/923 became infected or 19%. All the other age groups are in that table too.
“You are basically saying, Is this is a benign disease for almost all young people – in fact its asymptomatic is most – and most never even get a symptom. And its dependably really affects “old people” over sixty, with definite course and death in most. with very few exceptions… with no real explanation of anything in between – like its such a small tiny percent its not worthy of any implication.”
No I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying
(i) This disease is between 1x and 5x as virulent as seasonal 'flu (NOT 20-40x as many have been suggesting).
(ii) It is largely harmless (although perhaps still more dangerous than regular 'flu) for people under 50, and not especially worrying to people 50-60 who are otherwise in good health and don’t smoke.
(iii) It is more dangerous for people over 60, and especially over 70 - but still much less dangerous than is being suggested. Fatality is probably around 1-2% for over 70s.
(iv) Nevertheless it is extremely infectious and many more people will get it than get the seasonal 'flu.
(v) People who do develop serious symptoms seem to require protracted hospital care.
(vi) as a consequence of (iv) and (v) it still has the capacity to overwhelm our hospitals which is not a good outcome for anyone
(vii) However as a consequence of (i) and (iii)
- the cost of this disease in terms of death and suffering will be 10-20x less than it would be if you believed CFR were 2%-4%.
- our hospitals will be signifcantly less overwhelmed than otherwise
- the disease will run its course and the epidemic over in a shorter period
- the benefit of reducing the disease burden is lower than if the disease were much more dangerous, and we should think very hard about whether the cost we are about to impose will truly result in less suffering or more.
Hopefully that’s clearer.
