Hacker News Reader

Comment by enitihas | Hacker News Reader

Younger people are even lesser likely to need intensive care IMHO. So the numbers should be lesser for hospitalisation too.

View on HN

Try this exercise:

- Google the # of hospital beds in the UK

- Google the # of ventilators in the UK

- Pick your own fraction as to how many are currently available

- pick your own fraction of 40mm that will require hospitalization

- pick your own fraction of 40mm that will require ventilation

- Make your assumptions fit the # of hospital beds and ventilators

I haven't done all the arithmetic, but my gut says you will end up assuming that people in the "young" bucket are all essentially immune to severe forms of the disease. This is at odds with evidence in e.g. France, which would indicate a problem with your assumptions.

This is at odds with what anyone that is remotely looking at the numbers is thinking. It’s really a joke that so many people here are defending the suicidal choice of boris that is going to produce 1M deaths in the best scenario that I can think of unless it changes everything from YESTERDAY, not from now.

Just to clarify: I was not defending the idiotic choice of the UK government. Was helping lay out numbers to show how stupid that decision is.

From the figures, it looks like 10% of young are still severe pneumonia’s [0]. Not all of those require respirators or ITU, but quite a few will. The figures depend _hugely_ on the number of sub clinical/mild infections. The UK experts have public ally said they believe the overall mortality rate is at or below 1%. Given a global mortality of ~3% it appears they are assuming two thirds are so mild they didn’t present for testing. You must assume this is based on some evidence not available to the rest of us, or from some simulation based on other findings.

[0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032

> From the figures, it looks like 10% of young are still severe pneumonia’s [0].

Sorry, where do you see that in [0]? Table 3 has a pneumonia diagnosis but isn’t broken down by age, Table 1 is broken down (somewhat) by age but only differentiates between nonsevere and severe “disease”?

If you look at table one it gives you numbers and severity by age. Ignore the percentages quoted (that’s percentage of patients by age in certain groups which isn’t very useful) and look at the raw data. 67/550 in the 19-50 age range are severe. So >10% of those in the study. What isn’t known is the proportion of mild cases not included in the study group.

If you look in methodology (search for severity), severity is defined by severity of the pneumonia according to American criteria. So these columns refer to how bad the pneumonia is.

There are roughly 167,000 hospital beds in the UK of any type. At .5%, you'd need 200,000 beds for just covid19 patients, since the numbers for hospital care have been more in the 5-15% range.

Well, good luck?

"The professor of intensive care medicine, who himself heads the ICU of the Rotterdam Erasmus MC, emphasizes that it is not only the elderly who are affected by the corona virus. 'What has mainly made the news is that older people die faster. This is about 2.5% of the entire population, while about 15% of the elderly die. But _more_than_half_ of those patients are under fifty years old. It also includes young people."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com