https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105465/coronavirus-covid-19-cases-age-group-germany/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105512/coronavirus-covid-19-deaths-by-gender-germany/

The hardest part of all this is that there are questions about how each country is reporting cases/deaths. In all likelihood, being younger correlates to a lower CFR. I'm in the below 35 range, but not willing to take the risk that me or my family could be the outlier.

My social circle has been fairly good with staying home and not gathering. Since I really only have exposure to my own circle, I can't speak for what others in my age range are doing. I dearly hope everyone can continue to stay home so that we can get back to normal sooner.

cone said:

---

we still have a problem with communicating who exactly among the relatively young cohort are at the higher relative risk

obesity

instead we are dressing it up as diabetes, etc.

---

Yeah, but that's a conversation for another day (or one that isn't going to matter).

The people who are obese due to life decisions aren't going to be scared by a virus that might kill them if they catch it -- they've been well aware of the risks their obesity has had on their life expectancy long before this virus.

But maybe I'm wrong -- Hopefully that is a positive that will come out of all of this though -- instead of people viewing the degradation of their bodies into an unhealthy state as a "slow creep" that will eventually get them, maybe they'll instead start looking as their body as a tool and if that tool is refined/sharp, it can defeat attackers like this virus.

Proposition Joe said:

---

To be fair much of this reporting is also trying to counter earlier reporting that gave a much different impression of this virus.

Back when we were in the "elbow bumps are OK" and "only if you are sick do you need to stay home" days, most of the higher ups were pushing that this was a virus that only really impacted the old, at-risk population.

Once it really blew up state-side that narrative changed a bit. It's still the older that are most at risk, but there were many more under 50 that have had issues than we were expecting based on the foreign data we had. About 3 weeks ago that data started to change to reflect that younger were in-fact at risk.

While no doubt the news is looking for clicks, in this case it's not doing a disservice - it's been very obvious that young people don't seem to think this virus will impact them so maybe a few headlines will make them think otherwise.

---

I don't remember anyone I talked to or any news articles speculating that younger people don't get the virus or get it at a lower rate. I remember that they started off reporting that older people and at risk populations are more likely to die from it, but not that they contract it more often. I have no idea where this idea that old people catch it more is coming from. Either I never read those news reports or some people have problems with reading comprehension. Probably both...

pants said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

To be fair much of this reporting is also trying to counter earlier reporting that gave a much different impression of this virus.

Back when we were in the "elbow bumps are OK" and "only if you are sick do you need to stay home" days, most of the higher ups were pushing that this was a virus that only really impacted the old, at-risk population.

Once it really blew up state-side that narrative changed a bit. It's still the older that are most at risk, but there were many more under 50 that have had issues than we were expecting based on the foreign data we had. About 3 weeks ago that data started to change to reflect that younger were in-fact at risk.

While no doubt the news is looking for clicks, in this case it's not doing a disservice - it's been very obvious that young people don't seem to think this virus will impact them so maybe a few headlines will make them think otherwise.

---

I don't remember anyone I talked to or any news articles speculating that younger people don't get the virus or get it at a lower rate. I remember that they started off reporting that older people and at risk populations are more likely to die from it, but not that they contract it more often. I have no idea where this idea that old people catch it more is coming from. Either I never read those news reports or some people have problems with reading comprehension. Probably both...

---

Not sure if you were speaking in general or replying to me specifically - my post doesn't mention anything about "getting the virus", it mentions the impact of the virus.

KidDoc said:

---

Lester Freamon said:

---

In this case, the anecdote is worse than the statistic. NYC has a good reporting page on hospitalizations, cases, and deaths by age group. It is evident that CFR is below 0.5% for 20-49 years of age.

But man it will scare you straight to read about a healthy 29 year old being intimated.

---

Sorry but the "intimated" made me giggle. I'm sure it is an autocorrect for intubated but I gotta my laughs where I can.

---

I've learned from this thread that even young people who catch this virus might have to be incubated and they sometimes dry.

Now you're telling me it's not intimated, either?

Those stats are crazy to actually see. But they go right along with most have said from the beginning. Anybody, no matter you age, can become infected and die from it. The older population is just more susceptible to a more sever case and die. Same for males too. Very interesting.

BBGigem said:

---

Those stats are crazy to actually see. But they go right along with most have said from the beginning. Anybody, no matter you age, can become infected and die from it. The older population is just more susceptible to a more sever case and die. Same for males too. Very interesting.

---

Flu comparisons are not good, and I've criticized nearly every "this is just the flu" post.

However, the distribution of those impacted by Covid 19 based on age - at least at a quick glance - looks fairly in line with the numbers in tables 1 and 2 of this page: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

BBGigem said:

---

Those stats are crazy to actually see. But they go right along with most have said from the beginning. Anybody, no matter you age, can become infected and die from it. The older population is just more susceptible to a more sever case and die. Same for males too. Very interesting.

---

I'm curious if there are explanations for the higher incidence of male cases other than some genetic susceptibility. More men traveling for work, stay at home parenting, etc.

Someone educate me

Kick-R said:

---

BBGigem said:

---

Those stats are crazy to actually see. But they go right along with most have said from the beginning. Anybody, no matter you age, can become infected and die from it. The older population is just more susceptible to a more sever case and die. Same for males too. Very interesting.

---

I'm curious if there are explanations for the higher incidence of male cases other than some genetic susceptibility. More men traveling for work, stay at home parenting, etc.

Someone educate me

---

Non bold lifted from medical study, bold is my comment

Comorbidities that have been associated with severe illness and mortality include [20,43,47]:
Cardiovascular disease (more prevalent in males)
Diabetes mellitus (more prevalent in males)
Hypertension (more prevalent in males before age 65, in those older than 65 more prevalent in women)
Chronic lung disease (has traditionally been higher prevalence in males due to males smoking more)
Cancer (I wasn't sure but google tells me this is actually higher in males as well)
Chronic kidney disease (higher prevalence in males)

That makes sense. The old and ones with underlying health issues are for sure much more at risk. It can still "zap" a perfectly healthy person as been noted but the highest at risk is the elderly and ones with other health issues.

I am sure ready for this to be over. (Under statement of the year!)

Proposition Joe said:

---

pants said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

To be fair much of this reporting is also trying to counter earlier reporting that gave a much different impression of this virus.

Back when we were in the "elbow bumps are OK" and "only if you are sick do you need to stay home" days, most of the higher ups were pushing that this was a virus that only really impacted the old, at-risk population.

Once it really blew up state-side that narrative changed a bit. It's still the older that are most at risk, but there were many more under 50 that have had issues than we were expecting based on the foreign data we had. About 3 weeks ago that data started to change to reflect that younger were in-fact at risk.

While no doubt the news is looking for clicks, in this case it's not doing a disservice - it's been very obvious that young people don't seem to think this virus will impact them so maybe a few headlines will make them think otherwise.

---

I don't remember anyone I talked to or any news articles speculating that younger people don't get the virus or get it at a lower rate. I remember that they started off reporting that older people and at risk populations are more likely to die from it, but not that they contract it more often. I have no idea where this idea that old people catch it more is coming from. Either I never read those news reports or some people have problems with reading comprehension. Probably both...

---

Not sure if you were speaking in general or replying to me specifically - my post doesn't mention anything about "getting the virus", it mentions the impact of the virus.

---

Yeah, it's probably just semantics. I was reading the word impacted in your second paragraph as saying the media was reporting that the young would not be impacted at all. The news I follow basically said all along that the young are less likely to die - never anything about not being impacted at all. So I think it is still true that the young are not as impacted by this virus because they are not dying as often.

I think my point is that it feels like they're changing their tune not because they were wrong, but because people misinterpreted what they were reporting.

pants said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

pants said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

To be fair much of this reporting is also trying to counter earlier reporting that gave a much different impression of this virus.

Back when we were in the "elbow bumps are OK" and "only if you are sick do you need to stay home" days, most of the higher ups were pushing that this was a virus that only really impacted the old, at-risk population.

Once it really blew up state-side that narrative changed a bit. It's still the older that are most at risk, but there were many more under 50 that have had issues than we were expecting based on the foreign data we had. About 3 weeks ago that data started to change to reflect that younger were in-fact at risk.

While no doubt the news is looking for clicks, in this case it's not doing a disservice - it's been very obvious that young people don't seem to think this virus will impact them so maybe a few headlines will make them think otherwise.

---

I don't remember anyone I talked to or any news articles speculating that younger people don't get the virus or get it at a lower rate. I remember that they started off reporting that older people and at risk populations are more likely to die from it, but not that they contract it more often. I have no idea where this idea that old people catch it more is coming from. Either I never read those news reports or some people have problems with reading comprehension. Probably both...

---

Not sure if you were speaking in general or replying to me specifically - my post doesn't mention anything about "getting the virus", it mentions the impact of the virus.

---

Yeah, it's probably just semantics. I was reading the word impacted in your second paragraph as saying the media was reporting that the young would not be impacted at all. The news I follow basically said all along that the young are less likely to die - never anything about not being impacted at all. So I think it is still true that the young are not as impacted by this virus because they are not dying as often.

I think my point is that it feels like they're changing their tune not because they were wrong, but because people misinterpreted what they were reporting.

---

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too

Around March 16th we got new data that absolutely changed their tune regarding young people and the virus.

The issue with this data has always been that the "young adult" range is being described as "ages 20-54". That puts most people in their mid 20s in the same category as their parents. The risk factors just aren't the same at 20 vs 54 most of the time.

Interesting.

In the first paragraph of that article it says early reports from China indicated milder cases in young people. I guess I never interpreted that correctly. I guess I must have misread those early reports to mean that at risk demographics simply meant at higher risk for death, not at risk for more severe cases.

I probably would have behaved the same way (early social distancing) either way because of risk to the elderly and underlying conditions folks. Thanks for the link!

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that news sites run most of the younger people dying stuff for headlines.

But I've been following this from Day 1 and back in the first 10 or so days of March I was still telling my sister to keep the kids away from my parents when they returned for Spring Break solely for their sake -- no real thought was being given to anyone but older folks at that point.

Kick-R said:

---

I'm curious if there are explanations for the higher incidence of male cases other than some genetic susceptibility. More men traveling for work, stay at home parenting, etc.

Someone educate me

---

There are probably some behavioral contributors to the observed sex bias (more men smoke, etc...), but animal models show the same bias where all other variables outside of sex are held constant, so there is a definite genetic component. Obviously those studies involve SARS-Cov and MERS. SARS-CoV-2 is too new for those studies to have taken place.

It's currently thought that it has to do in part with estrogen receptor signaling having some kind of protective effect. In mice, treating females with an estrogen receptor antagonist makes them more susceptible to SARS -CoV infection