Many Severe Covid-19 Survivors Die Within a Year, Study Finds (gizmodo.com) 338
fahrbot-bot shares a report from Gizmodo: New research this week finds that people hospitalized with severe covid-19 often pay a heavy price afterward. The study concluded that these survivors were more than twice as likely to die in the subsequent 12 months compared to people who had tested negative for the virus. This relatively increased risk of death was even higher for people under the age 65. While there remains much research to be done, studies thus far have made it clear that many covid-19 survivors can experience lingering symptoms even after the infection itself has cleared up. And those who are hospitalized are all the more vulnerable to these aftereffects. Severe covid often seriously damages the lungs and other organs, while life-saving interventions like steroids, ventilators, and life support devices like ECMO can take a toll on the body as well.
Researchers from the University of Florida had already published a study in July showing that hospitalized survivors were significantly more likely to be hospitalized again within six months, compared to those with mild to moderate covid-19. This new study of theirs, based on an examination of anonymous electronic health records, instead looked at the long-term mortality risk of patients up to a year later. Nearly 14,000 patients in the same health care system were studied. These included 178 diagnosed with severe COVID-19 and 246 diagnosed with mild to moderate covid-19, as well as many others who tested negative for the virus but may have been sick for other reasons and received medical care in some way. Compared to covid-negative patients, and even after accounting for other factors like age and sex, those with severe covid were 2.5 times more likely to die in the next 12 months after their illness. Overall, just over 52% of severe covid patients died in a year's time. There was no significant increased risk of mortality for mild to moderate cases, however. "About 20% of the deaths among these patients post-infection were attributed to problems with either the respiratory or cardiovascular system," the report adds. "[A]mong patients in this study, the associated risk of dying was actually relatively greater for survivors of severe covid under age 65 than it was for patients over 65. Compared to similarly aged but non-infected people, they were more than three times more likely to die in the months after their hospitalization."
The findings have been published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine.
Researchers from the University of Florida had already published a study in July showing that hospitalized survivors were significantly more likely to be hospitalized again within six months, compared to those with mild to moderate covid-19. This new study of theirs, based on an examination of anonymous electronic health records, instead looked at the long-term mortality risk of patients up to a year later. Nearly 14,000 patients in the same health care system were studied. These included 178 diagnosed with severe COVID-19 and 246 diagnosed with mild to moderate covid-19, as well as many others who tested negative for the virus but may have been sick for other reasons and received medical care in some way. Compared to covid-negative patients, and even after accounting for other factors like age and sex, those with severe covid were 2.5 times more likely to die in the next 12 months after their illness. Overall, just over 52% of severe covid patients died in a year's time. There was no significant increased risk of mortality for mild to moderate cases, however. "About 20% of the deaths among these patients post-infection were attributed to problems with either the respiratory or cardiovascular system," the report adds. "[A]mong patients in this study, the associated risk of dying was actually relatively greater for survivors of severe covid under age 65 than it was for patients over 65. Compared to similarly aged but non-infected people, they were more than three times more likely to die in the months after their hospitalization."
The findings have been published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine.
Totally fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the common cold, except for the severe organ damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the common cold has plenty of history so we know the long term effects.
COVID is only a year or so old so the long term effects are just coming to light.
Re:Totally fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually any severe illness is going to be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality and subsequent rehospitalization. It used to be assumed that if an ICU saved a patient's life and that patient was discharged, the patient simply recovered. We now know that's often not the case. Patients who have been very sick suffer a wide range of impairments [wikipedia.org] not directly related to their original illness, including higher all-cause mortality and hospital admissions.
It wouldn't be surprising, given COVID's propensity to affect many organs and to produce long term sequelae, for it to be worse than most comparable respiratory disease, but this study doesn't appear to show that. IIRC, the study groups consisted of people with severe COVID, people with mild COVID, and people who consistently tested COVID-negative. Given these study groups it *can't* show that COVID is any different than other diseases of similar acute severity. Nor, do I think, was the study intended to show that.
Science is painstaking, and there never is enough funding to do the research you really want to do. So it takes a while to resolve a question, and you often have to start out by showing something you expect *probably* happens actually *does* happen.
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes a) it was created b) punishing them would do anything about what problems Covid is causing right now
Neither is true. In your analogy, the person is not dead, they're in the hospital, and you're more interested in finding who's at fault than continuing medical treatment if you had to pick one or the other (which you don't anyhow, but I'm humoring your shitty analogy and false dichotomy)
Re: (Score:2)
"we should still be looking at the cause"
"Punishing will hopefully help prevent this from happening again."
1. Just because it isn't in the news daily doesn't mean no one is looking.
2. There is a high likelihood no cause will ever be found, this was natural (not exactly the first virus), and there is no one to punish.
Re: (Score:3)
The cause is very a clearly cross species jump of a virus to humans. Now do you mean punish the people who did not lock down all national, state, and county borders overnight so that the virus could burn itself out? It's unrealistic. We will always be getting novel viruses, there will always be some cross species jumps, and the difference now from past centuries is that there is much more global travel so that new viruses don't stay localized.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure I understand your need for biblical-style retribution. But nobody is being distracted from root cause analysis. If they are involved in it, they aren't pulled aside to address some phantom third-party blame game. And if they aren't directly involved in root cause, what do we care what they think?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're going to have pandemics. They have been around as long as pathogens have been around, so probably for the entire history of life on this planet. Asia has often been the source of pandemics mainly because it has historically had much denser population areas, giving pathogens a larger attack surface. Blaming China for the virus is like blaming Hawaii for hurricanes.
Choices... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Choices... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also why some governments (like the UK's) have decided that for it to count as a COVID death it has to be within 28 days of a positive diagnosis/test. If you factor in the people who didn't die within a month but whose lives were shortened significantly, the figures are much worse.
Then we have the number living with Long COVID, with estimates from 10-25%.
Re: (Score:3)
Once that is done you can use statistics to calculate how many deaths are due to Covid, but you need an exact number to start with.
Re: (Score:3)
I also see that serious cases of covid that don't kill the patient aren't always included in the stats. So some people look at "deaths" and see that the chances of dying are low, especially with younger people, but they overlook that the chances are much higher than the chance of dying. It's sort of like noticing that automobile deaths are going down and deciding that you don't need to wear your seatbelt anymore. Add into that the misinformation that "it's just like the flu" and people are thinking "why
Re: (Score:3)
Hey you can always take the still on the experimental list regeneron treatment. It's only $2100 a pop!
Re:Choices... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey you can always take the still on the experimental list regeneron treatment. It's only $2100 a pop!
Ya, I always found it hypocritical (and sad and funny) that people in Florida shunned / eschewed a free, small vaccine injection, because it was (in their words) too new, untested, experimental and (was) only approved for emergency use, but when they got sick flocked to get an IV bag of Regeneron in their arm, heavily promoted by their Governor Ron DeSantis, which is also too new, untested, experimental and only approved for emergency use. The things stubborn people do for their politics...
Re: (Score:2)
Third choice:
Get your shot and quit worrying about what other people do.
People have a right to make stupid decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me if you believe gods will protect you, why go to the hospital.
If you believe that why go to work? Or why look before you cross the road?
Re:Choices... (Score:5, Funny)
Well there's the old joke about the crotchety man refusing help from rescuers saying that God will save him. Then he dies and shows up at the Pearly Gates and asking why God didn't save him from the flood. Saint Peter says "we tried, we sent three rescue boats and a helicopter!"
Re: (Score:3)
I start to have a hunch where the "vaccinated" covid patients come from...
Re: (Score:3)
Not in Great America it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA, they did account for age, sex, and other factors. I don't know that they compared i
Get vaccinated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get vaccinated (Score:5, Informative)
I think it's time for governments to stop pretending. We didn't (effectively) kill of smallpox by dragging our feet. We did it by telling people, "This isn't just about you. This is bad, and we have to worry about this for the human race." Why? Because it only takes one bad mutation and suddenly we have millions dying in short order, quite probably even vaccinated people. I know for a fact in the US we have precedent a mile high that we can tell people to get vaccinated or face penalties. Time to get tough with these anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-reality morons and protect the species.
Re:Get vaccinated (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they've got to stick it to the libs. I mean, it's no big deal according to the far right wing... just the flu.
The thing that is so STUPID with this "it's just the flu" line from antivaxx nutjobs is the flu is *horrible*. It's two weeks of hell.
Even if it was "just like the flu" why on EARTH would you choose that over a free, safe, vaccination?
Re: Get vaccinated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The right wing conspiracy theorists seem to be slowly waking up to vaccines being a good idea. Of course they have to have a conspiracy theory for it, in this case that liberals knew that if they all got vaccinated it would make conservatives not want to get jabbed and die.
Whatever gets them to take the vaccine I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
No of course you don't tovarich, you're not American. Well, you might be a TRUE BLUE RED BLOODED CONSERVATIVE REAL 'MURICAN who told that teachin' lady you only need to know 3 letters: U, S, and A.
Yes, I'm being mean here, but it's also because conservative anti-science / anti-reality morons nearly killed my father... my children's grandfather. How? Simple: They don't get vaxxed, he doesn't get his
Re:Get vaccinated (Score:5, Insightful)
My body my choice!
Alright I'd like to take recreational drugs
Oh certainly not, have a drink instead
How about an abortion then since it's my body and my choice?
Oh hell no, in fact you're being sued by random people for having that done you heathen
My baby is sick and needs medical treatment and I'm unable to afford groceries, can you help me?
Well sucks to be you now, good luck
I thought you cared about children?
What ever gave you that idea?
Re:Get vaccinated (Score:4, Insightful)
Also conservatives: Your body my choice!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Get vaccinated (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals: my body, my choice!
Also Liberals: your body better get the vaccine because your decision about vaccination affects everyone else
FTFY. HTH. HAND.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals want to have people fired for not getting the vaccine or maybe prevent them from going to concerts or sporting events.
I wish conservatives would try firing women who got abortions or try to restrict them from public gatherings.
Now that would really fire up some people to vote!
Re: (Score:2)
Consisten...consi...conservative, yeah, that's a word I know, but that other one?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a pity that in practice the message gets dumbed down to the binary "vaccinated or dead" to the exclusion of the not so glamorous "recovered".
My situation is that I have already recovered from an infection, but also was cautioned against vaccinating by my specialist doctor due to a rare chronic disease with a lot of risk factors (the doctor, in somewhat CYA fashion - which I don't blame her
Re:Get vaccinated (Score:4, Insightful)
Given how far this thing has spread, and how contagious it has become, "don't get vaccinated and don't get infected" does not seem to be a realistic choice anymore. (Theoretically, it is the best/safest choice, but is only available to you if no one else opts for it.)
So yeah, at this point, you pretty much have to pick one. You can take your chances with an infection, or with a vaccine. And anything the vaccine could do to you, the real virus is likely to do far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a horrible position for people with existing conditions that mean they can't safely be vaccinated. They end up trying to figure out which is worse, the vaccine or COVID, and there is very little data available to them to make that determination.
Re:Get vaccinated (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great that you can make the best decision for yourself but you have to realize you are likely in the 0.1% or 0.01% of all humans at this point with a legitimate "rare" condition that would preclude you from receiving any of the available covid vaccine choices (it's not simplythe vaccine) which all have varying ingredients and risk factors.
The point is that other 99.9% of people don't have any real excuse. As time has gone on the pool of who can take them has grown and grown and now the recommendation for even most immunocompromised people has changed from "maybe hold off" to "you should absolutely get it considering your condition".
Even the infamous Israel study that showed a high immunity for people with recovered immunity showed they have exponentially greater protection if they boost their immunity with a vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
There do seem to be major differences between the vaccines in terms of the reaction people have to them and how they interact with existing conditions. The problem is that there are a lot of conditions, a lot of anecdotal evidence, and very little money available to do studies to figure out exactly which ones are safe for which people.
This is often the way with rare conditions. There isn't much money to be made in researching them, and governments with limited budgets mostly spend them where they will help
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, and those people with those very specific conditions likely already know the risks with any vaccine in regards to their condition. Almost all the covid vaccines follow the same risk patterns as vaccines for previous ones as in almost every case the majority of risk in terms of allergies or side effects is not in the active ingredient but the packaging and preservatives. Many people who are severly immunocompromised are in fact now able to take mRNA shots since there is 0 risk of any accidental
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My situation is that I have already recovered from an infection, but also was cautioned against vaccinating by my specialist doctor due to a rare chronic disease with a lot of risk factors
No vaccine mandate I've ever heard of fails to include a medical exemption, so I don't see what your concern is.
Your health is best served by an extremely harsh mandate that forces everyone who doesn't have a medical exemption to get vaccinated, because that is the best way to keep you from getting infected (again).
I've been waiting for this study (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is something that has been talked about among researchers for quite a while. We did not have the data needed to verify it yet but it seemed inevitable. You can't infect this many areas of the human body and do so much damage without there being long term consequences. I actually expect a lot more research to show even longer term effects as we go. You see severe measles effects 10 years after people recover and I think we will see the same with covid.
The idea that you either die or you recover was idio
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised nobody responding to this story has pointed out that correlation != causation. The fact is this is not a controlled study, and you will get different results based on how you (retroactively) decide to create comparison groups. Overall susceptibility to disease is not possible to fully characterize before the body is actually challenged, so it's impossible to know what else might have happened to somebody if Covid didn'
Re: (Score:2)
I know 5 people who had it. 2 made full recoveries, even though it took a few months until they were back. 2 are still struggling.
What really pains me is the brother of a close friend of mine. Used to run in Ironman competitions and now can barely walk 5 minutes without being completely exhausted and needs to sit down. No later than at this point this fucking scared me shitless. I mean, this guy was about as healthy as you can possibly be, what would that crap do to me, a geek who spends 99% of his time sit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I've been waiting for this study (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also in many cases they are not showing signs of healing and we also know that covid damages neural tissue also. Nothing that does so much damage to your body just goes away with you being fine. It is likely that survivors are permanently damage without a technological fix. There is a lot of research going on now for how to repair these areas of the body. Our medical technology is progressing quickly but I think for many it will be too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering people with severe covid have lung, heart, and other organ damage [mayoclinic.org], have highly lowered blood oxygen levels [umn.edu] for a sustained period of time, and all the drugs needed to keep them alive, is it any wonder they die more readily. The body's been brutally punished. Why would it not fail more than those who didn't get as sick?
The issue with Covid-19 is that it may have severe symptoms, it may not.
But we can make an analogy, and a good one - The vaccine is like wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet.
You don't necessarily need either of them. you might get in a minor fender bender or just lay the bike down gently. Or they might save your life or prevent debilitating injury. So I wear my helmet, I wear my seat belt.
Yet we see people who ride without helmets, we see people who won't wear seat belts. I've seen many peopl
Easy to understand - not just COVID (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got news for you - ANYONE who ends up in the ICU on a ventilator for a dozen plus days is far more likely to die in the next year compared to someone who didn't, whether they ended up there because of COVID or if a Gilligan's Island coconut struck them in the head, though COVID could well be making those mortality numbers even worse (that would make a pretty interesting study, and I'm going to recommend it to my sister who is the director of anesthesiology at the VA). Really, you don't want to end up in the ICU for any reason if you can avoid it - the best possible outcome is months of intense physical therapy with no long term disability. That's the best outcome you can hope for and everything goes downhill from there. So stop rolling the freaking dice and get the shot, and, uh, don't stand under coconut trees.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
She was still hotter than Ginger and she could make everything out of coconuts.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess the goal should be to not get Covid or at least try everything you can that you won't have to go on a ventilator?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A useful metric is to compare the average mortality rate for previous years and COVID years. That figure will be influenced by many factors, such as lockdowns reducing road accidents and increasing mental health problems, as well as deaths directly linked to COVID. That makes them a good metric to judge a country's performance by.
Re:Easy to understand - not just COVID (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you thick or something. They are not saying don't go to the ICU if the doctor advises it. What they are saying is if you end up in an ICU that is bad news for your long term health. Consequently it would be prudent to do what ever you can to make sure that you don't end up in an ICU. In the case of COVID-19 that means getting your jags.
Please Get Vaccinated (Score:3, Interesting)
COVID is no party. It wrecks you. I have a friend who lives on the other side of the country who got it in June of 2020 and still isn't right.
I get absolutely no joy from reading about people like Marcus Lamb, the anti-vaxx televangelist who dies from COVID this week at age 64. No serious pre-existing conditions (he had diabetes type 2, but it was well controlled). They gave him all the monoclonal antibodies and Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and I'm sure it cost a ton, but he could have gotten a little jab and maybe he still would have caught COVID but probably he wouldn't be dead from it. I get no schadenfreude whatsoever from his death. I do get mad about all the people in his "congregation" that bought into his evil bullshit and got sick and maybe died or will.
Seriously, I don't want to see anyone here get sick when there's a free shot. Not even SuperKendall.
And of course, besides the normal precautions and vaccinations, the best way to keep yourself from dying from COVID is to be healthy. So eat right, get your sleep, and take care of yourselves. I don't want to leave Slashdot to a bunch of trolls with user IDs in the high seven digits. At least not for a while yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I don't want to see anyone here get sick when there's a free shot. Not even SuperKendall."
Do not forget that SuperKendall claimed that humans have natural immunity to COVID, as though the initial cruise ship incident proved this. He then argued for HCQ and claimed that omitting Zinc as part of the treatment was conspiratorial, and then moved on to be a megaphone for every destructive Trump lie about COVID that came along. It's what he has done with every issue since the very beginning, it is who he is.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of damage do you have to have to see any show of human compassion and empathy as "virtue signaling"?
Re: (Score:3)
COVID is no party. It wrecks you. I have a friend who lives on the other side of the country who got it in June of 2020 and still isn't right.
I get absolutely no joy from reading about people like Marcus Lamb, the anti-vaxx televangelist who dies from COVID this week at age 64.
At this point, I don't get joy. But I truly have zero sympathy. I just think "Another stupid ass gets more than he signed up for, so he was happy to die for his conviction".
It's a hellava hill to choose to die on. But at least now they are dead.
Re: (Score:3)
All we know for sure is: the vaccination is neither safe, nor effective.
Strange that every study disagrees.
I love this sentence (Score:5, Funny)
If it's severe, use uppercase. For mild to moderate, use lowercase. Less than that or not sure? Don't use its name directly.
Totally unsurprising (Score:2)
I wouldn't have predicted this result, but it sure doesn't surprise me. One of the effects of COVID, and in my non-expert theory the cause of many of the enduring symptoms, is that it creates small circulating blood clots (which sometimes grow). These get stuck in capillaries in various unexpected places, and occasionally cause reduced or blocked blood flow to something important. Brains, hearts, kidneys, livers, that kind of thing. Sometimes this can be cleared or worked around. Other times it does ir
"Twice as many" isn't too bad (Score:2)
Out of 140,000 average people, about 1,340 would normally die in a year. Of the 140,000 survivors of severe Covid, 2,680 would die. That's just 1,340 added to the 140,000 who are already dead. It's bad, but only one percent added to the total number of deaths.
Unless there is some more statistics that they didn't tell us about.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been vaccinated, never had COVID but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I got the vaccine, I did it when it was first available to me and I had no COVID symptoms or diagnosis prior to getting it. Now after the initial round and a booster I have chronic symptoms associated with the vaccine. I'm one of those rare cases it seems where side effects hit and are associated with the vaccine, not the disease.
Lucky Me
Now I'll go and cough awhile.
Statistics (Score:3)
My takeaway is that people who are going to be hospitalized and die in the next year are much more likely to acquire a severe case of the rona.
This fits the other things we know about severe cases.
Should be counting all of them (Score:3)
Among patients in this study, the associated risk of dying was actually relatively greater for survivors of severe covid under age 65 than it was for patients over 65.
I would suspect this is because of the lower percentage of patients over 65 who survived the initial infection and hospitalization. The weak ones in that demographic didn't survive to be included in this study.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what you get when you let MDs incentivized to give you a product known for one thing: kidney failures. This product is Remdesivir a poison promoted as a drug.
Have you heard of chemo and radiation? I don't know of any good effect from these treatments, other than they tend to kill humans slower than they kill the thing that is killing the patient. Hopefully immunotherapy and medicines the selectively target things that kill humans are improved with modern research, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger has a tendency to still hold true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that a great many drugs are poisonous at some concentration, right? Even water is poison if you have too much of it.
Don't be a git.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally everything is lethal at the right concentration. Even water.
People who don't understand that and expect medicine to a perfect science just don't get how the universe works.
Paracetamol can kill you. But in the right dose, taken for the right condition, under the right circumstances, it can literally save lives or just make a headache more tolerable.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that a great many drugs are poisonous at some concentration, right? Even water is poison if you have too much of it.
Lethal dose is about 7 litres. I think I might have several lethal doses of salt in my cupboard. (About 250 grams could kill you, so maybe one lethal dose).
Re: (Score:2)
The dose makes the poison. Most medicines are toxic to some degree. The question is how close is the therapeutic dose to the toxic dose? If these are very far apart, then it might be sold over the counter. A little closer and it will require an RX. Really close and it will need to be administered by a doctor and maybe require you to be admitted.
Look up how many liver failures are caused by acetaminophen some time. That's a drug whose therapeutic dose is so close to the toxic dose that it would arguabl
Re:Remdesivir = Poison (Score:5, Insightful)
Monoclonal antibodies that are still Emergency Use Only and cost close to 100x a dosage of vaccine? Really sticking it to "big pharma" there.
India whose death count was recently estimated be over 4 million so far? How's that Ivermectin working out for them?
India's Pandemic Death Toll Estimated At About 4 Million: 10 Times The Official Count [npr.org]
India who was doing so well with their "FULL FORCE" rollout has also administed over 1 billion vaccines. I think they know which one works now.
Seriously you guys need new arguments, these are the same tired tropes we were hearing over the summer.
Re: (Score:2)
You should carry a card that you refuse being put on ventilators, just for your safety.
Re: (Score:3)
Some party continues to bury monoclonal antibodies and therapeutics like Ivermectin which is now being used in full force in India.
I hear Americans smoke weed, clearly we should use that to treat COVID everywhere, because someone did something.
Thank god they are being "buried" too since the claim that this was remotely a success has been proven false. And your "in full force in India" isn't so much as "in full force" as it is "Not being used at all" and "Completely droped by the ICMR and DGHS" as the ICMR found it had no impact on treatment. https://www.financialexpress.c... [financialexpress.com] https://www.indiatoday.in/coro... [indiatoday.in]
Please try to keep up. I'm s
Re: (Score:2)
Oh get a room, you two.
Plus
Why not combine both concepts into one troll? Gay Bikers vs. Marines vs. MAGAts vs liberals in a royal rumble? Plenty of lube for everyone! And um . . . phone books and uh, bags of oranges . . . ?
Re: (Score:3)
What about if we just combine them into one person Gay Marine who like to Bike, Who is actually rather liberal in his ideology, but for some reason fell for Trump's Narcissism?
There is this strange notion that Correlation = 100% Fact!
In fact Sexual Orientation doesn't any longer exclude from from military service, nor does it force them to have any political ideology.
Biking is a hobby enjoyed by many people
Military service doesn't include loyalty to a political party.
Not all Liberals always vote Democrat, a
Re:Another sensational study (Score:4, Interesting)
Because studying 14,000 people isn't a large enough sample size.
Re: (Score:3)
Hence the title - "Many Severe Covid-19 Survivors...."
Re: (Score:3)
If someone got severe COVID and didn't get hospitalized they are damn lucky to be alive at all.
Considering that, I doubt that their health is in a better shape than those who actually got a treatment which means if non-hospitalized cases where included in this report it would be an even more depressing read.
Re: (Score:2)
They're all cases that lead to hospitalization. What about cases that didn't?
If only there were a summary you could have read...
Oh there was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since we're looking at severe cases of Covid, I think it's fair to say that the state of people how had a severe case and were not hospitalized has not changed since their burial.
Ok, most of them went from solid to liquid by now, but I mean in a medically relevant way.
Re: (Score:2)
Because studying 14,000 people isn't a large enough sample size.
It's only a large enough sample size if you include the entire population.
Yeah, math is overrated, and we should ignore what it tells us about required sample sizes.
Re: (Score:3)
But how can you possibly prove anything if you don't test it on every single member of the population?
Exactly. Just like there's no way to know if the sun will rise tomorrow, and the day after, etc., without waiting to see it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With such a small sample size, noise has a huge effect. And, you can't simply claim that you're accounting for other factors when a single death can m
Another idiotic assessment (Score:2)
Yep. 2018 US mortality rate was 867.8 deaths / 100,000. So, assuming (yeah, I know, this is just "back of napkin") the 178 severe patients are a representative sample, one would expect 1.54 to die naturally. So, if 2 died (you can't have half a person die), that's statistically 29% above average. If 3 died, statistics would say they're twice as likely to die.
Where did you come up with such nonsense? The summary gives us the numbers...
52% of 178 is a lot more than 2 or 3 dead people...
Re: (Score:2)
So, if 52% of severe COVID patients died in a year, that says that over 20% of their non-COVID patients died within a year. I'm not buying it. If it were true, a hospital would be the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about dying, but when I worked at a hospital they exhorted us to wash our hands often, saying that 1 out of 5 patients catch an infection while in the hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. 2018 US mortality rate was 867.8 deaths / 100,000. So, assuming (yeah, I know, this is just "back of napkin") the 178 severe patients are a representative sample, one would expect 1.54 to die naturally.
You can't assume those 178 severe patients are a representative population of the rest of the US. Statistically, they are going to be older and have other comorbidities. This in no way a fair comparison, even for a "back of napkin" estimate.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. 2018 US mortality rate was 867.8 deaths / 100,000. So, assuming (yeah, I know, this is just "back of napkin") the 178 severe patients are a representative sample, one would expect 1.54 to die naturally. So, if 2 died (you can't have half a person die), that's statistically 29% above average. If 3 died, statistics would say they're twice as likely to die.
No they wouldn't, statistics would say you don't have a large enough N to make a conclusion.
With such a small sample size, noise has a huge effect. And, you can't simply claim that you're accounting for other factors when a single death can make such a large difference in results. Correlation is not causation.
Which should serve as an alarm bell for you, ie, "are the authors making a mistake that would flunk them out of stats 101 or am I misunderstanding something about the study I didn't read?"
As it turns out the answer is the latter [frontiersin.org]. The study looked at patients from a hospital, so definitely not the standard US mortality rate, and they include a table in the study. Of the 178 severe COVID-19 patients 93 died (not 3), an
Re: Another sensational study (Score:2)
You mean sebnsationalist?
My sister is a doctor, very few of her covid patients that ended up on ventilators went back 2nd time to hospital, the're all fine. So bullshit florida-centric study. Maybe eat LESS mcdonalds or something?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Many people ignore statistics because they have no math genes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
jesus christ, imaging being this stupid
it's *more likely* to die compared to a control group (non covid, aka your vegan NPR listening scotch drinkers) not just *die* .. do you not understand how numbers or words work? maybe it's time to consider never voicing your opinion again on anything
Re: Another sensational study (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, let me break it down for you since you didn't quite grok my point.
"Overall, just over 52% of severe covid patients died in a year's time."
"those with severe covid were 2.5 times more likely to die in the next 12 months after their illness."
20.8% * 2.5 == 52%, so we can rewrite this as:
"Overall, just over 20.8% of non-severe covid patients died in a year's time."
Add to that, this quote:
"There was no significant increased risk of mortality for mild to moderate cases, however."
I'm not sure about you, but
Re:Another sensational study (Score:5, Informative)
20.8% * 2.5 == 52%
Your math (and subsequent analysis) is not quite correct. You're mixing normalized and non-normalized values without regard for which are which and are getting "bullshit numbers" (your words), because you didn't recognize what those numbers represented. Re-read the original sentence in the summary that provided those values (emphasis mine):
Compared to covid-negative patients, and even after accounting for other factors like age and sex, those with severe covid were 2.5 times more likely to die in the next 12 months after their illness. Overall, just over 52% of severe covid patients died in a year's time.
2.5x is an adjusted value that you can take at face value. As they detail in the paper, it's been normalized for comorbidities, age, race, sex, and other factors. Assuming your 0.728% value is valid, you can multiply it against 2.5x to get the 365-day mortality rate among those with a severe case of COVID. Sure, it's not nearly as frightening of a number, but it's still a 2.5x increase over baseline mortality.
In contrast, 52% is not an adjusted value. As you rightly pointed out earlier in the thread, people die after doing things—even safe things—all the time, so we'd want to understand that value in its proper context by comparing it against the overall mortality rate among a comparable cohort before we start jumping to conclusions. Sure, 52% sounds terrible, but we can easily imagine hypothetical scenarios where 52% may actually be an improvement (e.g. if everyone in the cohort had a terminal illness and a week to live, half of them living for a year would be a huge improvement...which isn't happening here, just to be clear).
The reason "20.8% seems like a bullshit number" is because you failed to take into account the overall cohort they used. You seem to have assumed it was a cohort drawn from the overall population, but the paper indicates these are existing patients in a health system, i.e. people who have been hospitalized. Indeed, their own data backs up the idea that about 20% of the total cohort died within the 12-month period, far in excess of the baseline mortality we'd expect, which just goes to show why it's so important to understand these numbers in context.
So, in short, take the "52%" with a massive grain of salt, but you can take the 2.5x pretty much at face value.
Re: (Score:3)
But the observation is that of people who are in the hospital, 2.5 more people die within a year who have had severe covid than all other causes of hospitalization - normalizing for factors like age and sex. And we're talking about people who *get out of the hospital* who have sufficiently recovered from the cause of their hospitalization! That's an interesting, novel, non-obvious observation. It's not what you'd expect or have been able to guess out of thin air - because it's being compared to other people
Re: (Score:3)
Did you completely miss the fact that those UNDER 65 who recovered from severe COVID were MORE likely to die than those OVER 65?