General COVID-19 Topic

[iacas]

This is not to make light of the deaths of over 3,000 people in PA.

[David in FL]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

This is not to make light of the deaths of over 3,000 people in PA.

Seems like a sharp guy.  Puts things into perspective pretty well.

[Braivo]

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

This is not to make light of the deaths of over 3,000 people in PA.

They never put things this way on the news, unfortunately. Tragic, indeed, but we are reacting (shutting down the nation) as if these are thousands of kids dropping dead. 

[klineka]

53 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Tragic, indeed, but we are reacting (shutting down the nation) as if these are thousands of kids dropping dead. 

Why does the age of the person matter? Thousands of people are dropping dead. 

[ncates00]

31 minutes ago, klineka said:

Why does the age of the person matter? Thousands of people are dropping dead. 

Read the letter that @iacas posted.  Not to make light of any one who has died or suffered in some way from the virus, but most of the target people are already susceptible to many things--the flu, pneumonia, coronavirus, heart disease, and more.  Again, it's not intended to make light of the tragedy that can befall a person, but when you're susceptible, due to age and other pre-existing conditions, to a multitude of things already, we're not surprised when coronavirus takes the person out.

Edited May 12, 2020 by ncates00

[Braivo]

36 minutes ago, klineka said:

Why does the age of the person matter? Thousands of people are dropping dead. 

It absolutely matters. Shutting down the economy has costs too. Like it or not, life comes with risks and trade-offs. 

The capitalist economy has saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty over the years. It is the greatest force of prosperity ever known.

Giving some nursing home residents a few extra months/years is not worth shutting it all down, plain and simple, especially when we could isolate those people anyway until this thing is over. 

Personally, my 96yo grandmother is in a nursing home and tested positive for the virus (since has recovered). During the shutdowns my Dad almost died of a heart condition he couldn't get treated because they had shut down all surgeries for a time. He had to wait for his lungs to fill with fluid before they'd make an exception and operate on him. How many people like him didn't get a slot in time?

There are consequences (often paid for by younger people) to shutting everything down.  

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Not to make light of any one who has died or suffered in some way from the virus, but most of the target people are already susceptible to many things--the flu, pneumonia, coronavirus, heart disease, and more.

Maybe it has to do more with age, but the #1 pre-existing condition is hypertension (per the letter). Nearly 103 million people have hypertension. 

[dennyjones]

While the stats in @iacas letter are valid, let's not forget there are other areas of the country considerably in worse shape where healthy young people are affected and dying.   In Beaumont Hospital near Detroit at one time there were 1500 workers in just that hospital that tested positive for Covid-19.   Several of those healthy workers have died.

Some parts of the country were more readily able to open to business before others.   With the right precautions, the rural areas of the country could have never been sheltered w/o deaths.  

It seems like the virus was active (Fouci is testifying right now) well before the "shelter in place" order in some states.   Michigan had thousands of kids travel to Florida for spring break, returning to Detroit.  Michigan held an election where the turnout was larger than usual.  Detroit is a well know international hub with tens of thousands of people from foreign countries traveling.   Michigan is on a downward trend, Detroit included.

My point with all of the rambling, some areas of the country are ready, others are not.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Maybe it has to do more with age, but the #1 pre-existing condition is hypertension (per the letter). Nearly 103 million people have hypertension. 

Hypertension and advanced age.

Coronavirus isn't taking out a bunch of 28-year-old hypertensive people.

Hypertension is #1 on the list of people who died, and the first bullet point on that list is age. Everything after is secondary (or lower) to that first bullet point.

4 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

While the stats in @iacas letter are valid, let's not forget there are other areas of the country considerably in worse shape where healthy young people are affected and dying.   In Beaumont Hospital near Detroit at one time there were 1500 workers in just that hospital that tested positive for Covid-19.   Several of those healthy workers have died.

And millions of people have been out of work. You can't just look at immediate "deaths" in all of this.

The average age of the deaths in PA was 79. That includes all the "younger" people that died.

79 79 79 79 79 25 is an average age of 70. It doesn't take much to drastically bring down the average age. Oh, and the average life expectancy in the U.S.? 78.54 years.

@dennyjones, the average age in Detroit is 75 or 76. It's not that much different than in PA.

"Michiganders in the 80-plus age range account for 11% of cases but make up 41% of deaths. Following that age range come those in the 70 to 79 range, who comprise 27% of deaths."

68% of the deaths in Michigan are 70+.

Nobody's making light of death rates or totals. But I think it's important to consider the deaths and destruction that we'll see long-term, too. Suicide rates will increase. Jobs are lost. Futures are dramatically altered.

[klineka]

22 minutes ago, Braivo said:

It absolutely matters.

So if I understand this right, if COVID-19 was affecting younger people equally as much as older people you would be fine with the restrictions that have been put in place, but since the majority of the people affected are older you think the restrictions are not necessary/too strict?

You still didn't answer my question, WHY do you value the life of younger people more than the life of older people?

[Braivo]

12 minutes ago, klineka said:

So if I understand this right, if COVID-19 was affecting younger people equally as much as older people you would be fine with the restrictions that have been put in place, but since the majority of the people affected are older you think the restrictions are not necessary/too strict?

You still didn't answer my question, WHY do you value the life of younger people more than the life of older people?

Yes. Younger lives are more valuable than older ones. It's a tragedy when a 30 year old dies. It's not when an 80 year old dies. Everyone feels this whether they will admit it or not, but it's true. The funeral for an 80 year old will have an accepting tone. A funeral for a 30 year old, or a kid, is a very somber and devastating. 

People say "he had so much life in front of him" for a reason. The loss of a younger life is more tragic, and a younger life has more "value" in the sense of time left. 

My life is more valuable at 40, where I am raising kids and have significant responsibilities and many people depending on me, than it will be when I am 80 and retired. Simple truth. 

My life is more valuable than my 96yo grandmother, and my 14 year old son's life is more valuable than mine. Would I die to save my son? Yes. Would I die to save my grandmother? No. 

Do they throw up a massive search operation when a 85yo dementia patient goes missing from a nursing home?  No. Do they pull out all of the stops when a 9yo kid doesn't come home from school? Absolutely.

Should we shut down the entire country to save thousands of 80 year olds? No.

Should we shut down the entire country to save thousands of kids? Perhaps. 

This doesn't even account for the impact that shutting down the country might have on kids via poverty, abuse, parental suicide, etc. 

Like it or not, life has different values at different points and everything is a trade-off. 

[DeadMan]

Thought this was interesting:

The South’s Restaurant Reopening Is Going About As Well As You’d Expect

---

It turns out you can't unthaw an economy overnight during a pandemic.

Mirrors how I feel about stuff reopening. I’m not going to be doing much indoor activities for a while. Going to a restaurant and sitting down to eat is not in the cards for a while for me.

[mcanadiens]

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

Mirrors how I feel about stuff reopening. I’m not going to be doing much indoor activities for a while. Going to a restaurant and sitting down to eat is not in the cards for a while for me.

Certainly don't envy those restaurant operators. We know a few of them and those margins are razor thin in the best of times. 

Ohio is suppose to start allowing outdoor dining on Friday and the forecasts call for thunderstorms. 

Would have to think it a tough deal deciding what is the best option 1) Limited opening, 2) Carryout only or 3) Stay shut. 

Glad it isn't my problem.

[CarlSpackler]

It's a bit premature, but it helps to confirm what many of us are thinking including many doctors. I'm tempted to go get tested, but for $65, it's not that important. I have better things to spend money on...

LIKE GOLF! 😎

If the weather ever turns back around. 😒

Quote

Ohio Department of Health Director Dr. Amy Acton announced Monday that they have found five different cases in five different counties that the date of onset of symptoms was in January.

Antibody testing reveals COVID-19 has been in Ohio since January, health officials say

---

Health officials said as COVID-19 testing increases in Ohio, they expect to learn more about the virus and how long it has been in the state.

 

[DeadMan]

10 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

It's a bit premature, but it helps to confirm what many of us are thinking including many doctors. I'm tempted to go get tested, but for $65, it's not that important.

Antibody tests are not going to be all that useful outside of places where the spread is high. Hypothetically, if you have a place where 1% of the population had it and an antibody test with a 1% false positive rate, a positive antibody test would only mean there’s a 50% chance you had it. (This ignores a lot of other stuff, but it gets at the core problem.) 

Realistically, you’d need a very accurate test and an area with a high proportion of the population infected. So it might be useful in NYC or northern Italy, but not that useful in a place like Colorado, where the estimates are that around 1% of the population had it.

[CarlSpackler]

25 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Antibody tests are not going to be all that useful outside of places where the spread is high.

Many people including my doctor and other practicing family physicians believe that this has already made it's rounds in Ohio and most people have survived it. Dr. Acton and our gov. have been proceeding under the assumption that it hasn't. Antibody test could prove that we have already had, and survived, the surge.

[mcanadiens]

At this stage, my thoughts and concerns regarding the coronavirus can be summed up with this following message ...

Edited May 12, 2020 by mcanadiens

[iacas]

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

Antibody tests are not going to be all that useful outside of places where the spread is high. Hypothetically, if you have a place where 1% of the population had it and an antibody test with a 1% false positive rate, a positive antibody test would only mean there’s a 50% chance you had it. (This ignores a lot of other stuff, but it gets at the core problem.) 

1%?!?!

We are nearly at half a percent of confirmed cases already.