Almost a Third of Recovered COVID-19 Patients Return To Hospital In Five Months, One In Eight Die (yahoo.com) 294
According to new research from Leicester University and the Office for National Statistics (NS), almost a third of recovered COVID-19 patients will end up back in the hospital within five months and one in eight will die. Yahoo News reports via The Telegraph: Out of 47,780 people who were discharged from hospital in the first wave, 29.4 per cent were readmitted to hospital within 140 days, and 12.3 per cent of the total died. The current cut-off point for recording Covid deaths is 28 days after a positive test, so it may mean thousands more people should be included in the coronavirus death statistics. Researchers have called for urgent monitoring of people who have been discharged from hospital.
Study author Kamlesh Khunti, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at Leicester University, said: "This is the largest study of people discharged from hospital after being admitted with Covid. People seem to be going home, getting long-term effects, coming back in and dying. We see nearly 30 per cent have been readmitted, and that's a lot of people. The numbers are so large. The message here is we really need to prepare for long Covid. It's a mammoth task to follow up with these patients and the NHS is really pushed at the moment, but some sort of monitoring needs to be arranged."
The study found that Covid survivors were nearly three and a half times more likely to be readmitted to hospital, and die, in the 140 days timeframe than other hospital outpatients. Prof Khunti said the team had been surprised to find that many people were going back in with a new diagnosis, and many had developed heart, kidney and liver problems, as well as diabetes. "We don't know if it's because Covid destroyed the beta cells which make insulin and you get Type 1 diabetes, or whether it causes insulin resistance, and you develop Type 2, but we are seeing these surprising new diagnoses of diabetes,â he added. "We've seen studies where survivors have had MRS scans and they've cardiac problems and liver problems. These people urgently require follow up and the need to be on things like aspirin and statins."
Study author Kamlesh Khunti, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at Leicester University, said: "This is the largest study of people discharged from hospital after being admitted with Covid. People seem to be going home, getting long-term effects, coming back in and dying. We see nearly 30 per cent have been readmitted, and that's a lot of people. The numbers are so large. The message here is we really need to prepare for long Covid. It's a mammoth task to follow up with these patients and the NHS is really pushed at the moment, but some sort of monitoring needs to be arranged."
The study found that Covid survivors were nearly three and a half times more likely to be readmitted to hospital, and die, in the 140 days timeframe than other hospital outpatients. Prof Khunti said the team had been surprised to find that many people were going back in with a new diagnosis, and many had developed heart, kidney and liver problems, as well as diabetes. "We don't know if it's because Covid destroyed the beta cells which make insulin and you get Type 1 diabetes, or whether it causes insulin resistance, and you develop Type 2, but we are seeing these surprising new diagnoses of diabetes,â he added. "We've seen studies where survivors have had MRS scans and they've cardiac problems and liver problems. These people urgently require follow up and the need to be on things like aspirin and statins."
It is not NS but ONS (Score:2)
for the stats people.
NS in the UK generally stands for 'National Savings'.
Re: It is not NS but ONS (Score:2)
In Germany it stands for Nationalsozialistisch. :D
You can guess what that means.
TFA is here (Score:5, Informative)
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249885 , principal author is Daniel Ayoubkhani (ORCID: 0000-0001-6352-0394). (Why is Slashdot citing Yahoo citing The Telegraph?)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard Yahoo knew all about the tech and science.
Horrifying / Yahoo! News (Score:5, Interesting)
So first of all, as someone who has relatives contract Covid just a month ago, this is horrifying. Long covid is terrifying me to no end.
On a completely unrelated topic: why would anyone, ever link to Yahoo! News? The same article on Telegraph has additional charts and diagrams, wisely stripped by the Yahoo! editing (because who needs graphics when you can have text?). In exchange for stripping the article Yahoo! tries to set enough tracking and profiling cookies to make up for it in bandwidth. Good deal, huh?
0.125 x 0.333 = ~4% (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because you cannot read?
and 12.3 per cent of the total died
The only total mentioned is the 47k. If they were talking about the 12.3% of the 30% then they would say something like "and 12.3% of those died". The two stats are not related. There is no reason to assume even that the 12.3% were re-admitted before they died which is the real take away. To use some math terms, the 12.3% is not a subset but they also are not mutual exclusive -- so we would need some more info to draw our Venn diagram. Some of these people may never even get me
Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just maybe - the idea of going for 'herd immunity' without a vaccine by some folks here was a profoundly bad idea, based on what they felt on a whim... and evidence is constantly showing them wrong.
Over, and over, and over again.
Now we have a working vaccine that is proving safe and reliable at a population level - people don't have to catch it AT ALL.
Keep in mind - we've lost well over 400,000 people so far - at 7% infection. Maybe we should try and understand why it's still a priority to not let that number go up.
And then once we work together until we reach 300 million or so vaccinated folks - we get an ACTUAL herd immunity levels WITHOUT constantly killing such large numbers of people,
It's at that point that that maybe we keep that little bit of wisdom in our cap - that there are better ways to act in a pandemic. It's one of those times when science and people that have trained their entire lifetimes saving people's lives internationally are worth listening to - that lives are actually worth saving, because it really does stand a good chance of saving your loved ones in the end - yes, even saving strangers can help you.
And if you're trying to maximize freedom - there are times when working together to save lives gets to to maximum freedom much more efficiently than raging against shared efforts.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the "herd immunity" concept is laughable with a relatively unknown pathogen. It makes me wonder if anyone has suggested herd immunity with Ebola...
People are relatively stupid about these things. The development of vaccines probably isn't even discussed in high schools today, much less during high school of the parents of those children. "Life sciences" need to be more heavily taught in a theoretical sense instead of how biology is taught more from a memorization standpoint. Between knowing the parts of a cell and the general implications of the theory of evolution, the latter seems a whole lot more important with respect to our daily lives. Right now the virus is mutating... it's mutating more quickly because people tried herd immunity... interesting.
More so the culture of ignorance is equivalent to skepticism is likewise laughable. People think they can sling some of their armchair skepticism against every scientific paper and it should hold the same weight as the peer review system of publishing scientific papers. Not all journals are equal in quality certainly but you cannot just through shit at all of them which is what 50% of the people want to do, half the time by quoting a poorly reviewed journal against a quality one. I think the fossil fuel companies have literally funded this whole form of debate for like half century now... so we can at least understand how it got ingrained.
However, I personally don't know if I think the vaccine is safe... there are reports of deaths, primarily from the Chinese vaccine and being in China, I have heard people state their fears with taking the vaccine. We know the vaccine creates a "mild" form of the symptoms but most are saying it's comparable to a severe case of the flu. Flu kills a lot of people. When we consider comorbidity and age, the vaccine is likely not good for some individuals, especially without medical attention. How many of these people should be in hospitals during the period they recover from the vaccine -- this is a question I haven't seen asked anywhere and seems "fair". So the vaccine is certainly better than getting the virus but the use of it for some groups, may still be quite dangerous and I don't see this often discussed. Again let me state the difference, I am not saying don't get a vaccine and to return to the concept of herd immunity we really need most of the population taking the vaccine but we know some people cannot and shouldn't take vaccines but we don't seem to know just how much of the population that is for this vaccine. This number essentially says "how safe the vaccine is".
As for the freedom matter. I think it's funny Americans put this pin on their cap like they are the best at freedom. There are countries that in many measures of freedom do better than America -- we aren't number one. More so, "in the pursuit of happiness" the language specifically states liberty and security... so once cannot have one without the other. People often give the rhetoric that sacrificing our liberty for security means we deserve neither but the reality is liberty doesn't exist outside security.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the "herd immunity" concept is laughable with a relatively unknown pathogen. It makes me wonder if anyone has suggested herd immunity with Ebola...
To be fair, Ebola has "herd immunity" in a sense. It kills those off that are careless or not careful enough fast. This is just a "meta immunity", but pretty effective. COVID unfortunately kills very slowly and people are infectious before they are really in trouble and hence that meta-mechanic is not there or only there for people that can deal and prepare for a pretty abstract threat (a small minority).
More so the culture of ignorance is equivalent to skepticism is likewise laughable. People think they can sling some of their armchair skepticism against every scientific paper and it should hold the same weight as the peer review system of publishing scientific papers.
Very much this. Sure, there are pretty bad publication venues and part of being an expert in a field is
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This study was about Brits - and "herd immunity" was a plan put forth by the idiot British Government (before anyone knew anything more than the name of the virus and that it was killing Italians). Once a few senior people in government actually got Covid though, the idea was quickly dropped and we (eventually) had Lockdown v1.0.
The suspected architect of the "herd immunity" plan has since left government - and joyously, got to leave his office carrying a cardboard storage box with his stuff in it. He left,
Re: (Score:2)
Just maybe - the idea of going for 'herd immunity' without a vaccine by some folks here was a profoundly bad idea, based on what they felt on a whim... and evidence is constantly showing them wrong.
Even at the start, it was pretty clear they were wrong (with a small probability of error, which by now is essentially gone). The problem with these defectives is that they desperately wish to make this threat seem as harmless as possible and that includes herd immunity being a good idea. Of course, this is an utter risk-management fail, because while you can accept a risk, you need to really understand it before you do with at least some solid upper boundaries on damage if the risk realizes. Hence these people live in a fantasy-world and never really tried to understand available data and facts. The reason is obviously that they never learned to control their fear and to keep their mind working in the presence of fear. Basically personalities on low development level.
Re: (Score:2)
Ops. My statement is the twice quoted one.
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
It also means that the current strategy is NOT about eliminating the disease. It's a virtue signal of "I care", rather than a method to actually destroying the disease's life cycle in a meaningful way.
Bullshit alert.
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
And even a PERFECT vaccine isn't a panacea.
Tell it to Polio. Oh wait you can't because we eradicated it despite our vaccine not being perfect.
Original Study (Score:5, Informative)
There needs to be a new law mandating that newspapers publish scientific sources when publishing scientific claims. Especially when they are new and not peer reviewed yet.
Conclusions: Individuals discharged from hospital following COVID-19 face elevated rates of multi-organ dysfunction compared with background levels, and the increase in risk is neither confined to the elderly nor uniform across ethnicities. The diagnosis, treatment and prevention of PCS require integrated rather than organ- or disease-specific approaches. Urgent research is required to establish risk factors for PCS.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The rest of the story (Score:2)
Re:The rest of the story (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a subscription to JAMA (which every US doctor does, international results may very) you can read the damn paper. But if you read a summary in a popular news source, and then bitch about a lack of details... well I'm also upset that "computers for 2 year olds" doesn't' start with a rigorous definition of Turing-complete.
Re: (Score:3)
How many were Trumpists that refused to wear a mask?
The research was done at Leicester University in the English Midlands.
So most likely, few of the deceased were Trumpists.
Re: (Score:2)
How many were Trumpists that refused to wear a mask?
Probably quite few since people who ended up hospitalised due to COVID tend to start taking it more seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
But congrats on being the first person to bring Trump into the discussion.
Do we need a Godwyn's law for mentioning Trump, or is it still a day too early for that?
Re:The rest of the story (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad I wasted all my mod points. You are the hero of this whole discussion.
Re:The rest of the story (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, what the study doesn't address - and I'm not sure how you could easily do so at present - is analyze what the collective long term effects of those who have survived Covid *without* requiring hospital care, let alone those who were asymptomatic, might be in terms of probablility of suffering from Long Covid, and the potential for more serious health issues down the road. For those (myself included) who have managed to get through Covid proper without requiring any significant medical support, but have since been struggling with things like chronic fatigue, lung damage, and other various longer term effects, and for the health services that will need to support them, this is the big - and potentially rather alarming - unknown right now.
Re:The rest of the story (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whew. It was like I couldn't breathe.
Re: (Score:3)
I got a mental compiler error, ") expected", until I read your post.
Re: The rest of the story (Score:3)
EVERYONE in our degenerated industrialized world is gravely ill.
When was the last time you saw somebody without any obesity or cardiovascular diseases (aka refined carbs diseases), hair loss (no, that is not normal for old age), ruined joints etc before their 60s or even 40s if you look closely. Most people are sick before they stop leaving school. But we just think it is normal because it is the norm over here.
Well, it isn't normal: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
There's been plenty of reports of 'asymptomatic' people with messed up brains, hearts... after COVID.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:2)
The age/health of admitted covid patients is going to be wildly different from average non covid patients, you have to correct for age and general health. For instance I know another thing highly correlated with diabetes.
So can someone hunt for the paper and see if it's just the media oversimplifying or the study is bullshit?
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Funny)
I second that "needs more research".
Has there ever been a medical or social science paper that concluded "No more research is needed"?
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, what else don you suggest? Ignorance and the bible? ;)
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes they do throw out the phrase - a settled science - but in all fairness it isnt scientists making those statements. The phrase itself is an oxymoron. Nothing in science is ever settled. New understandings are always part of the process.
Re: (Score:2)
No it is often scientists. There are many kinds of scientists of course. Historically there existed a type of contrarian scientist willing to challenge anything.
Now we have more the type of 'if it is published it is science and I will use it without questioning because I have trust in science.'
There is room for both really. There is also a need for both.
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:3)
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny when Ferengi believe people who do research must be doing it for the money, because they can'âs be doing it for anything else.
Have you ever seen a rich scientist? Or healthcare worker, for that matter?
Some people are humans, and have higher goals. And some people are Ferengi, and dream of their first billion and spinnin' bling rims. (Money is a tool. If you do not know what you need the money for, you don't need the money.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Money is a tool. If you do not know what you need the money for, you don't need the money
Does a truly massive pile of blow and hookers count as knowing what you need it for?
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Have you ever seen a rich scientist? Or healthcare worker, for that matter?"
No, but I have seen a scientist or health care worker who wants to keep their job.
I'm not one of those nutjobs who thinks everything is bought and paid for, but I'm involved in science enough to know that many things that lay people think are "objective" are not truly objective.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry bud but nobody earning six figures, even high six figures, is rich.
Annual earnings in the high six figures - as in $500,000 - $999,999 - isn't "rich" to you?
An annual income of $538,926 puts you in the top 1% of earners in the US. [usatoday.com]
Here in the real world, earning half a million per year very much makes you "rich".
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. It makes you well off. Rich means something different. A whole different ball game. If we did not have such incredible wealth inequality here, you'd be right, but since the actual rich have stolen everything of value, people making a measly million a year are still poor.
Someone making a million a year is much closer to the bum on the street than they are to, say, Gates or Bezos. If you can't retire immediately, at your current lifestyle, and live indefinitely off your investments, then you have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this modded insightful? It is anti-science trolling. I have never seen this phrase in a research paper and google scholar finds only 1500 hits (and in most cases it appears that this phase is used in a different context). vs. 500.000 for "more research is needed".
Regarding "more research is needed", I think this is partially due to publication bias (which is indeed a problem). Successful research often opens up new research questions that should (or could) be studied. When unsuccessful research direc
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I find the math to be a bit dodgy. So the latest numbers for the US indicate about 7% of the population infected. That's 330 million-ish people.
7% of the population: 23 million
33% of them return to the hospital: 7.6 million
12.5% (1 in 8) of those that return die: 950k people
That's about 3X the actual number of deaths currently. And as already mentioned, the deaths are heavily skewed towards the elderly and people with significant pre-existing health problems. Not saying having old and sick pe
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
Conclusions Individuals discharged from hospital following COVID-19 face elevated rates of multi-organ dysfunction compared with background levels, and the increase in risk is neither confined to the elderly nor uniform across ethnicities.
Re: (Score:3)
Judging by the number of anti maskers our country has I doubt this is just a slashdot problem. Quite a few people with far less education than the average slashdot user seem to also think they know more than the relevant experts.
Re: (Score:3)
>They also drank more water than the average person (that is a side effect of diabetes), that doesn't make water consumption correlate with their deaths.
Actually yes, it does exactly that. Just as ice cream consumption correlates with drowning deaths. What it doesn't (necessarily) do is imply a causal connection. Hence "correlation is not causation".
Now, if the post-COVID hospitalization and death rates are markedly higher than the expected death rates of similar population from previous years, or tha
Re: (Score:2)
That is a surprising (preliminary) conclusion because when I looked into the european numbers a while back often excess deaths were about double the reported covid deaths. The plausible explanation for that was that reporting from hospitals went fairly well but other sources were not that well organized.
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:3)
Excess deaths are an increasingly closely tracked statistic. In the US, excess deaths over what we would normally see are way, way up in many age groups. In many countries in Europe, excess deaths are way up for the elderly, but more like a bad flu season for all other ages. Demographics are certainly going to play a role in case outcomes and mortality, but âoenot deadâ is also a pretty low bar for recovery. Health care systems are going to be impacted my various COVID syndromes for a generation (
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
The article doesn't contain that information. However, the paper was published in a very reputable medical journal (JAMA). It's behind a paywall but I feel very confident, given the journal, that such confounds as age and prior health conditions were controlled for. Studies that don't account for confounds won't get past peer review.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm happy that you're willing to have blind faith in the data, there was a reputable medical journal that published papers from a doctor that claimed vaccines were causing autism...leading to "blind faithers" refusing to vaccinate their children. Of course, it was later debunked, but the damage was done.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Flawed analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't say "the data was perfect". I said "the methodology controlled for confounds like age, etc." Peer review can catch many types of experimental design failures and statistical failures. It cannot catch issues like Wakefield, who used a PCR lab tech that produced inaccurate results and is now suspected to have made up portions of his data. TL;DR - Peer review of honest submissions catches errors in methodlogy or assumptions (e.g. not adjusting for prior health), it is not as robust to protect against scientists making up results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they were 90+ on average, 1 in 8 feels like a scary number. In other words, let's say the average is 65. You wouldn't normally give a 65 year-old 1 in 8 chances to make it to 9 months from now.
A quick search finds (not reputable source but in this case I'd give them the benefit) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/... [thesun.co.uk] "average age of people dying in England and Wales from Covid-19 is 82.4" (October).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:2)
* most. By far.
Re: (Score:3)
When the 2020 data on deaths is finalized then we can look at the year over year. This should eliminate any concern over "natural" deaths.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
the number 1 cause of death in most modern countries is actually automotive related
Where did you come up with that statistic? It is not even close to true. In the US, for instance, vehicle accidents kill around 40,000 people each year. Heart disease, on the other hand, kills about 650,000. Cancer kills another 600,000 or so. Auto accidents don't even make the top ten.
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the vast majority of people hospitalized by COVID are people of poor health in their 80s and 90s, what percentage of them would have been hospitalized and/or died in that 140 day period without COVID?
If you think about it for even a few seconds, you'll realize that, even for people in their 80s and 90s, the percentage who die in a given 140-day period is much smaller than 12.3%.
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are statistics for the US - for a male aged 80-85 the death rate is about 7% per year. For a male 85+ the rate is about 14% per year.
Most serious admissions to hospital have been 80+, so Covid is approximately doubling the death rate per year in that age group.
Re: Yeah but what age were they? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A quote from TFA:
Symptoms included breathlessness, excessive fatigue and muscle aches, leaving people struggling to wash, dress and return to work.
That sounds like working age people being affected. Elderly in poor health do not return to work.
It would be good to compile actual figures.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes you should read the fucking article, or even just the summary which says: "Individuals discharged from hospital following COVID-19 face elevated rates of multi-organ dysfunction compared with background levels, and the increase in risk is neither confined to the elderly nor uniform across ethnicities." [my emphasis]
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Jfc make some kind of effort before spouting off
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link.
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
>Finally, the absolute risk of post-discharge adverse events was greater for individuals aged 70 years than 70 years, and for individuals of White ethnic background than in the Non-White group. However, when contrasted against the background rates of adverse events that might be expected to occur in these groups in the general population, younger and ethnic minority individuals faced greater relative risks than those aged 70 years and those in the White group, respectively.
So they found that if you have known comorbidities, you'll have worse outcomes. That's it.
So you consider being aged under 70 a comorbidity? Quite the hot take.
That is a very strange summary of those findings. 30% of the covid group were readmitted versus 10% of the control group (matched on age, sex, ethnicity, region, Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile, smoking status, and clinical histories of hypertension, major adverse cardiovascular event, respiratory disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, diabetes, cancer) were readmitted. 12% of the covid group died versus 2% of the control group.
If their methodology and statistics are valid (it isn't peer reviewed yet, and I'm certainly not an expert on that) those are reasonably large increases that has nothing to do with "if you have known comorbidities you'll have worse outcomes". It's possibly useful information to have for places with large numbers of covid patients in hospitable at the moment - they might need more resources than they would expect and that will overlap with new cases in places where case numbers are not being brought under control.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing how blinkered folks will be, isn't it? The OP began with a point about it all being very elderly, very sick people being readmitted and dying and so therefore no biggie, clearly implying that if you were a fit 50 year old, you'd got nothing to worry about, whereas the study actually shows that if you were a fit 50 year old unlucky enough to have been hospitalised with covid, there's an unhappily high chance that after you were discharged you'd end up back in hospital and/or dead
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a whataboutism type claim.
The article is specifically refering to Covid.
Thats the thing that grates me by all the folks banging on about "Well you know these people are dying anyway so maybe its not covid". Which ignores something very fundamental, that *its irrelevant* because we're specifically talking about people who die OF covid. And it also ignores that the epidemiologists ALREADY DO take into account that sort of detail.
The claim that "its the same number as usual excess deaths" are a pretty good indicator the poster doesn't understand what they are repeating, because theres no such thing as the "usual excess deaths". If it was usual, it wouldnt be excess. Thats the whole damn point of the term.
Re: (Score:2)
I am of the firm belief that people who make comparison like the GP are frankly just jealous of those who had grandparents that baked us awesome cakes and cookies. These people should be struck out of any inheritance.
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Defense: “Why that woman was pretty darn old when she got mugged, how could cause of death have been gunshot wounds when she had diabetes and a chronic liver condition?”
Judge: “makes sense to me, you are free to go!”
Re: (Score:2)
The important part from the summary:
The study found that Covid survivors were nearly three and a half times more likely to be readmitted to hospital, and die, in the 140 days timeframe than other hospital outpatients.
So to answer your question:
Considering the vast majority of people hospitalized by COVID are people of poor health in their 80s and 90s, what percentage of them would have been hospitalized and/or died in that 140 day period without COVID?
That would be: around 8.4% hospitalized and 3.5% dead for non-covid outpatients.
Maybe I should read the article.
What? On Slashdot? But in this case the summary is enough.
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look at this chart. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covi... [cdc.gov]
It shows that approx 25% of the hospitalizations are people ages 18-49, and another 25% are ages 50-64. So much for the "vast majority".
You seem to be following the debunked idea that those people would have died anyway. If that were true, we have some explaining to do regarding the large number of fatalities in excess of normal years. The reported numbers of COVID fatalities don't even account for them all, which is why it's highly likely that we're under-counting them, and this article points to a possible reason why.
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Informative)
You are a prime example that people on average are not getting smarter or more logical. I have never once heard any historical evidence that seemed to point to any mass of people downplaying the black plague but roughly half of Americans seem to be in denial with respect to the total damage COVID is causing. Research is being done, you aren't really reading the article, you assume the peer review system on the matter is completely broken, and instead say the whole thing is for ratings? What ratings -- the News agency? It's like you have ADD, so someone throws a ball down the "it's a hoax alley" and you chase it all way to any means that justify your preconceived notions. Seriously, there are rocks which are more open-minded...
Better yet, you use a meme which is about portraying a lack of education and the virtue of spending time to research/examine things -- then use this meme to highlight how people are just hyping up the epidemic... So your in denial and you have no concept of irony...
Cannot wait for the research to be produced on the COVID denialism and the collective bias that gave it's origin (and I am quite sure IQ won't play the most significant part because being smart is more than IQ -- e.g. EQ)... too bad the research is probably 10-15 years out because we first you know gotta get past having a global pandemic...
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:5, Interesting)
I bring this up not to defend the original poster but to draw a parallel between then-and-now of citizen's responses. Misinformation is always a problem and there are sometimes powerful forces which help to perpetuate it even to the point that people will blame (and kill) others rather than take a clear-eyed look at the situation. Plague and epidemics are scary things, confronting the mortality of us all seemingly at random. The natural response is fear but also denial and anger. Because it's so predictable and because we can recognize its pathology, we should consider misinformation a collateral impact of epidemics or even a feature of the disease itself. But so too should scorn and anger are be treated. All of us are deserving of compassion during this time.
Re:Yeah but what age were they? (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as you keep ignoring countries like Australia (which also has greedy pharmacy types) then you will never pass the cognitive dissonance test.
Governments acting strongly to protect their people at every level actually works. Fining and locking up half-wits, telling the truth as it becomes available, isolation, track and trace, financial support for the people that need it to survive and somewhere there is a formula for the preservation of life and the economy.
Racist ramblings about how other countries must be telling lies and can't be trusted because we just know that 'Merica is the Greatest is the continuing hallmark of a systemic failure that promises to be a full dark chapter in future history books. (Not in Texas because the School Board of course.)
It beggars belief that the same people who say unendingly that their own form of government cannot be trusted, strongly prefer and defend it over all others. For some unknown reason, it is especially preferred over those that demonstrate deeper and more enduring systems of democracy.
You can't change. Maybe the children of the survivors of this or perhaps the next pandemic will learn and adapt and implement? Maybe.
Re:Age and BMI (Score:5, Informative)
You can read the preprint [doi.org].
To be a bit more constructive:
Re: Age and BMI (Score:2)
So what were the outcomes of their age/health cohort without covid?
Re: (Score:3)
So what were the outcomes of their age/health cohort without covid?
70% chance of a vote for UKIP.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a correlation between effective intelligence (not IQ, that one is meaningless) and Covid infections would be interesting. So nobody smart and careful I know got infected, but several people I know that are smart but have problems recognizing the importance of details (a more polite way to call them "somewhat careless") got it, one twice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Age and BMI (Score:5, Informative)
KimDotOrg posted it above:
Mean age was 56.6 years, average BMI was 26.6, 7% had diabetes and 5% chronic heart disease, 18% thyroid disease and 35% hypertension. (from the paper)
Re: (Score:3)
Do they have expected death and expected hospitalizations for theses people outside of Covid? (Sorry, too lazy to read the thing...)
Re: (Score:3)
The death rate was expected 2% versus actual 12.5% regardless of any other factors.
Re: Age and BMI (Score:2)
While I agree, BMI is horribly misleading though. E.g. many athlethes have a very "bad" BMI because of muscles.
Belly fat and cardiovascular problems would be what to look for.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Chinese Culture Spread the Coronavirus (Score:2)
American Culture Spread the Stupid.
I'm sorry, but it is true.
Stupid should not be fashionably.
Being wise should not be "pompous and faggy".
But looking at Slashdot, I'd say it will take quite some time before even basic intelligent conversations stop flying over the heads to the average American out there.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Probably because they are run to make a profit instead of to improve the country and humanity.
You do realize the stats are from the UK, right? The NHS isn't exactly known for being driven by profit...
Re:Looking at what hospitals feed you... (Score:5, Informative)
The existing evidence base shows large variations in estimates of PCS prevalence and incidence due to differences in study populations, recruitment methods, follow-up periods, and sample sizes. Most studies to date have concentrated on symptoms associated with PCS rather than organ impairment, and few have made use of a control group permitting the inference of counterfactual outcomes. Therefore, using national electronic health records and death registrations for individuals in England, we quantified the incidence of mortality, health service utilisation, andorgan-specific impairment following discharge from hospital withCOVID-19. We estimated rate ratios of post-discharge adverse events compared with those in a matched control group, and heterogeneity in this rate ratio across demographic groups.
Top summarize, they are looking at what kinds of organs were negatively affected during COVID infection and how that affects a person's long term health. I know people who got COVID last year and are still having relapses. I shouldn't have to say this, but reporters today suck and it's always better to read the original paper and analyze what they are saying.
Re: The politicised NHS can no longer be trusted (Score:2)
You can probably thank the Mont Pelerin Society for that. And their Vatican City, called Cit Of London. (Not to be confused with the city named London, weirdly.)
Re: (Score:2)
The article isn't the paper, which as you would expect does in fact compare to a control group that matches things like age and medical history. The guardian's version of the article does at least link the article - yahoo news as you would expect doesn't.