The severity of covid varies greatly by age, with risks of death in young people often said to be equivalent to those of flu. This is one of the most pernicious pieces of misinformation I have noticed in the pandemic. This is why 1/n
first of all, let me be clear that this is *only* based on deaths. There is plenty accumulating evidence that ~10% of people can have long term illness (long covid) lasting for months and this includes young people. I know some. You may too 2/n
It is correct that younger people are much less likely to die from covid, but younger people are much less likely to die period - from covid *or* flu. So how many younger people typically die of seasonal flu? Fortunately @CDCFlu has asked that question for us 3/n
For 2017-2018, an estimated 2,803 people aged 18-49 died of seasonal flu in the US. Note this was out of a total of more than 60,000 making this a pretty bad year cdc.gov/flu/about/burd… 4/n
In case you don't want to click on the link - note too that it was CDC who set the age brackets. I'm not trying to claim that this is the official definition of 'young'. So... how many in these age groups are estimated to have died in the pandemic so far? 5/n
If you look here you can see that adding up those age groups you get 7,966 covid deaths. You don't need to be the world's greatest epidemiologist to understand this is more than 2,803 6/n
covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra…
again for those who don't want to click on the link. Note that this is not even including all the deaths *so far* (only ~150k of them). So the actual numbers are higher. This also doesn't include any correction for possibly undetected deaths 7/n
There are more up to date data you can find here, but they don't use the same age brackets. They tell the same story 8/n cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr…
So, covid is more dangerous than flu in all age groups with the probable exception of the very youngest. Remember those flu figures we started with were from the whole of a bad flu year, and we're only in October when it comes to the pandemic. And cases are going up. Again 9/n
Do what you can to avoid helping spread the virus. Avoid the 3 Cs - close contact, closed poorly-ventilated spaces and crowds. The best way to avoid the need for 'lockdowns' is to not lose control of the pandemic 10/end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bill Hanage

Bill Hanage Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BillHanage

16 Oct
The changing political geography of the pandemic in the US. In the spring the densely populated deep blue NE was hit hard, but since July things have flipped and cases and deaths are now highest in rural GOP voting areas. Featuring work from us
washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10…
It also quotes @AliHMokdad who says, rightly "it didn’t show up immediately in rural communities,” he said. “And then people in these communities felt, ‘That’s not us, that’s the big cities.’ They let down their guard.” But there's something else here
the introductions to large urban areas are predictable, simply because of the numbers of opportunities, while for smaller rural communities it is more random. But given time the virus will get there eventually
Read 7 tweets
14 Oct
With many other experts in infectious disease and allied fields, I'm proud to sign and have done my bit to help write this in @TheLancet which explains the *actual* expert consensus on the #COVID19 pandemic and the need for action marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lanc…
The letter states as clearly as can be that approaches to the pandemic that seek immunity through natural infection are dangerous, and explains why
This is a collaborative effort with many brilliant people, but @dgurdasani1 deserves special mention, for the tireless way she combined viewpoints and expertise from many different fields to build this statement of *consensus*.
Read 7 tweets
11 Oct
This is a very interesting deep dive into the controversial route Sweden took through the spring and summer of the pandemic (HT @AliciaJWeston). A few things stand out... sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/i…
First Sweden did not ‘do nothing’, there were sensible steps taken including restrictions on large gatherings (implemented early on), and there was considerable evidence of altered movement patterns. High schools and universities remote learning too. However...
There was still a very large, very rapid surge in healthcare demand and lot of deaths in a short period during the spring. Mortality was concentrated in nursing homes - which *are* part of the continuum of healthcare. Figures are not easy to interpret because of issues with...
Read 9 tweets
10 Oct
The first statement is sort of true although a bit misleading - many pathogens are disproportionately dangerous to those who are vulnerable for one reason or other, but Covid is especially so.

But the 2nd statement leaves me at a loss. I can’t think of an example 1/n
We don’t use naturally acquired immunity in this way. Btw have you imagined the stink there would rightly be if a vaccine had the risks associated with Covid-19? 2/n
There are some diseases where the risks of infection vary given the age you first encounter them. Mumps is an eg. Post pubertal males can be rendered sterile. Chickenpox is another where it is milder in younger age cohorts 3/n
Read 6 tweets
8 Oct
This illustrates a few of the points made by people who, whatever their motivations, should not be really taken seriously when it comes to talking pandemic - not least because these arguments come from the part of epidemiology that deals with *non*infectious disease 1/n
(Firstly anyone who says Covid mania has already revealed that they’ve got what you might call a pre-existing condition when it comes to the science. I don’t think that more than 200,000 and counting deaths is worth joking about. Call me crazy) 2/n
‘May not’ vs ‘may’. Yes it is right to be cautious about these statements. But not to the level of relativism implied here. The ‘may’ formulation is not equivalent to ‘may not’. It implies that we think about its consequences 3/n
Read 7 tweets
6 Oct
Scientists are not "divided". If you want to know what scientists really think, ask them and interpret the results scientifically 1/n spectator.co.uk/article/with-s…
What do I mean by that? I mean that obviously people have some disagreements about interpretation of the data and the best way forward, but mostly there is more that they agree on than that they do not 2/n
First identify the people who you should take seriously on the subject. That is those with relevant expertise, in this case infectious disease. No matter how much someone knows about say cell cycles, they aren't qualified for this 3/n
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!