News you can use: you’re living through multiple pandemics, all the time.

There’s a flu pandemic (several, actually), that are far more immediately threatening to you than this virus. Society has not yet fallen.

Does this have a very different fatality rate that the flu does?

Also many at-risk patients are vaccinated against the flu.

Besides, even if you are likely to survive and all, it's still wise to plan for everybody else to panic ;)

The fatality rate is on par with the flu, except in older patients (over 60) where it is currently higher.

Ironic that you should bring up flu vaccination...despite the risk of death from flu being the average person’s greater concern (by far), we still have to beg people to get vaccinated, and the rates are low.

I’d wager that most of the folks fear-mongering about covid-19 on this thread haven’t had a flu shot this year.

This is absolutely false. You’re comparing the coronavirus fatality rate for young and healthy people to the overall flu fatality rate. Try comparing the fatality rate of 20-40 year olds only between each virus and then get back to us on how they’re comparable.

Also, I’m kind of horrified at how indifferent you are across many comments to the prospect of tens of millions of elderly and sick people dying. Just because you’re young and healthy, no one should be very concerned about this?

According to the most recent paper from CCDC, under age 40, the current estimate of fatality rate is 0.4%. Between 50-59, 1.3%.

For those with no pre-existing medical conditions, 0.9%:

http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9...

Death rates for flu vary widely by age, race and location, but these numbers are not out of the ordinary for influenza.

I’m not “indifferent”, I’m calmly assessing relative risks. You, on the other hand, are simply spreading FUD. Go breathe into a bag.

Fatality rate in US for 18-49 is 0.02%. Source:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

So using your most optimistic number of 0.4%, that’s a fatality rate 20x as high.

And again, you have many comments downplaying the significance of this virus based on your own assessment that it kills young and healthy people at acceptably low rates. What about the billions of people who are older, sick, or have the misfortune of being born in a country without access to decent medical care? Pretty easy to calmly assess relative risks to other people, especially if you get them wrong by a factor of 2000%.

I am concerned about other people. It has no bearing on my advice to you, which is that unless you are old or sick, you should stop posting misinformation to HN, and go breathe into a bag in a dim room.

Maybe play some relaxing music and light a candle. (Be careful, though: you’re many hundreds of times more likely to start a fire with the candle than die from covid!)

Yes, but we have vaccines for the flu, and as far as I can tell this is far more contagious. Even with a lower mortality rate, the death toll could be much higher.

If things do start getting bad, I expect it might happen rather suddenly.

It is about as contagious as the flu. Stop fear-mongering.

Also, not for nothing: most people don’t get the flu vaccine, despite endless begging on the part of health officials.

It’s much, much deadlier and more likely to put you in the hospital than the flu, though. The trite comparisons to the flu are honestly irresponsible at this point. There’s a reason public health officials all over the world are taking this very seriously.

It is not. You are making up “facts” and need to stop.

This virus disproportionately kills old and sick people. Aside from the fact that over 80% of cases are mild, the death rate in patients under 60 is well under 1%:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia...

Even these are based mostly on statistics from Wuhan, where a “confirmed infection” has to be severe to begin with; these rates are going to be overestimates of the real rates.

Nothing you’ve said remotely contradicts what I said. Feel free to provide actual evidence that my facts are incorrect.

Why shouldn’t we care about a virus that mainly kills old and sick people? Especially when that alone can overwhelm our medical infrastructure.

Additionally, even a 0.5% mortality rate for young and otherwise healthy people is much higher than the flu, and serious cause for concern. I’ll take a 0.5% chance of dying over 2% any day, but I still will take a lot of actions if I can to avoid a 1/100 chance that my daughter has to grow up without one of her parents.

As long as we’re talking about facts and misinformation, let’s talk about your assertion that mortality rates are going to be lower than Wuhan. They may be, but it’s way too early to say. We don’t yet have reliable data on how many mild cases are missed in the official figures, how the remaining unrecovered patients will fare, or how many deaths have been caused by the virus but are not attributed to it in official figures.

Look, I get that you’re scared and lashing out at people who are saying you have reason to be, but you’re not going to make any difference here. This is a serious global issue, which is why every country with significant infections is going to incredible lengths to try and contain it. I’d suggest you stop trying to police people on the internet who aren’t meeting your personal standards for reacting to this and instead do some prep to keep you and your loved ones safe and secure.

I provided a link to “actual evidence” in the post. Read it instead of posting rumor and opinion as fact.

Nobody said you “shouldn’t worry” about a virus that kills old people. But if you’re not old or sick, you should worry about it less than other things. Like getting the flu.

”I get that you’re scared and lashing out”

What manner of gaslighting is this? I am absolutely not scared, and I am trying to spread accurate information, in order to counter fear-mongering posts like your own.

See, there you go again. You’re suggesting that someone young and healthy should be more concerned about the flu, which is absolutely ridiculous and not supported by any data. The only “evidence” you posted is that the elderly and sick are most at risk, which no one was disputing, and which does not support your position that the flu is more dangerous to young and healthy people than this virus.

For someone 'rational' and 'cool-headed' you seem awfully hysterical, peppering this entire discussion with your certainty. It's fascinating.

This one has a 3-4% death rate and debilitating, lifelong consequences for those that 'recover'. Its a big deal.

If denial makes one feel better, go for it. Post it here though, and expect to be rapidly disabused.

It does not have a 3-4% fatality rate. You are either getting bad information, or you are making things up.

The latest numbers from the WHO and the CCDC are an average case fatality rate of 2.3%. This is highly likely to be an overestimate, and the deaths are skewed heavily to the old and infirm.

From the most recent CCDC report [1] those under 40, case fatality was 0.2%. Under 50, 0.4%; under 60, 1.3%.

For those with no pre-existing illnesses, case fatality was 0.9%, across all age groups.

[1]http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9...

Note the fatality rate is deaths divided by current infected. But the people dying are those that contracted the disease 4-5 days ago (folks don't die the instant they get sick). So the death rate on folks ultimately reaches nearly double the reported rate?

But draw your own conclusions:

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...

No. This is completely incorrect.

The case fatality rate is the number of deaths divided by confirmed infections. This is what is being reported.

Infection Fatality Ratio changes the denominator to a model for the currently infected population. This is a smaller number, because the denominator is much larger.

There is no mortality metric being reported by reputable sources that is multiples higher than the CFR, as you suggest.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...

Or, look at the timeline for infection vs eventual fatalities. As I said, draw your own conclusions from the reported data by Johns Hopkins (do they pass the filter for 'reputable'?).

The most useful number I know is, survival chances. How many in 100 stand to be alive say 2 months later. The numbers seem worse than 98, by a good margin. At least worldwide.

Stop being dishonest. Comparing the flu to the Corona virus is comparing apples to oranges. They don't even share transmission rates.

Your accusations of fear-mongering are ill-founded and un-productive.

I'm of course completely factually correct that there is no vaccine for COVID-19 (although there is a SARS vaccine that may help). Which, even if it is only as deadly as the flu, is still a huge issue. I have immune-compromised family members, so I get the flu vaccine. I have no such luxury in this case.

The fact that the symptoms are mild for most people only makes it more of a danger, because people are less likely to self-quarantine if they only have cold-like symptoms.

All the confirmed cases in the U.S. are currently under quarantine. However, the CDC does fully expect that the disease will spread free here in the states.

Northern Italian states have closed all public schools, universities, and public events.

The virus is not “far more contagious” than the flu. It’s about as contagious as the flu, and maybe slightly more deadly, primarily to older/sick people.

You’re panicking, you don’t understand what you’re reading, and (assuming that you aren’t just trying to spread fear) you should stop posting on this subject.

> assuming that you aren’t just trying to spread fear

You are paranoid. Stop pointing fingers, stop making accusations, and back up your points.