COVID-19 is at least 5 times deadlier than flu for hospitalized patients

[admin]

Mounting evidence shows that COVID-19 is more severe than flu.

COVID-19 is at least 5 times deadlier than flu for hospitalized patients : Read more

 

[MMMark]

"Hospitalized" is the keyword. Patients delirious with fever in a disease centre isolated from friends and family surrounded by frightened ghouls wearing bin bags and goggles. I had it, starting suddenly with pain in the stomach, scrubbing brush in the lungs, pain in the head, vomiting and a centimetre of sweat all over. I had to bear this for several days. I stayed in bed.

 

[OldeSalty]

That's cute. So you think your single case of anecdotal evidence is enough to ignore data and science? You are willfully ignorant if you see the data and still ignore it. Just because you had a mild case, yes I said mild based on your description, doesn't mean that is the case for many people. I also know people that got it and have fewer symptoms than you. I also know some that have had severe cases and even ones that have died. A friend of mine died from it recently. But that is also anecdotal evidence... so I tend to ignore in in place of the data... as you should consider doing the next time you want to voice an opinion on facts and data.

 

[Sam Minnerve]

Very hard to understand how 20% of victims can need hospitalising. There are enough figures available now to challenge this.
I’ve been looking at the French data which is well reported and about 10% of the victims since the start of the pandemic have been hospitalised.
But that’s of the people who have been tested positive and they are by definition the people the most sick with the disease.
There are perhaps 4-5 times more than that who have had the disease without being tested because the symptoms were mild, and maybe double that who were symptomless (It’s reckoned about 50% of people infected are symptomless, especially young people). Testing hasn't always been freely available either.
But even that is probably high for the current situation.
At the beginning of the crisis, people were much more likely to be sent to hospital than they are now. There are doctors everywhere successfully treating patients at home and patients in nursing homes are no longer being sent to hospital except in the most extreme cases.
There have been 178358 French infections reported in the last week and 3991 hospital admissions suggesting a current rate of about 2%
Looking further at the excellent French reporting, they have almost exactly the same infection rate in the over 90s as they do in the 20-29s-185 per 100,000 and 190 per 100,000 so it can’t be said it’s only the young getting infected at the moment which would otherwise explain why there are so few hospitalisations.
Furthermore, figures for the over 60s and over 70s are roughly 120 per 100,000 But there were only 156 deaths in nursing homes in the last week whereas over a quarter of all deaths up to now have been in those homes- mostly at the beginning of the epidemic
Your study quoted is looking at rates in March to May when people were almost automatically slammed into hospital on a ventilator and it was the wrong thing to do.
Even proning has been shown to have greatly reduce the death rate as have other basic facts like the nursing staff being better and quicker at noticing the signs of collapse and the successful administering of steroids and anti-coagulants.
We have to accept something isn’t the same as 6 months ago from all the recent figures and we need to base assumptions on what we are seeing now we have more experence and knowledge and frankly, things aren’t looking anything like as bad as that at the moment.
What will make a difference of course is when the IC units are once again at full capacity.
When they have to turn people away they will once again die on the floor as they did in March and April and we will see these figures rise rapidly.
That is why it is so vital we have to make these sacrifices now to keep the infection rate treatable.

 

[StuN]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The average age of the two cohorts WAS 70 AND 69?? How about placing that information in the headline?