Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (12 Viewers)

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
69,934
Sure.

But think about the nature of this virus. This isn't going to be gone in september. Or january 2021. It'll just keep returning. Hell, it might mutate and become more deadly.

Shutting everything down just isn't the solution.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
Neither is letting the virus overrun the health system. You can google the reports. That also ends in tragedy.

I think we're past the point of what you're suggesting, at least here in the US and other countries in the same position as us. Sure if proper testing and tracking had been done on a larger scale at the beginning of all this you could make an argument for returning to life as normal. At the moment there are too many variables that we don't know. So far what we do know is yes the disease kills very old people at a higher frequency than people in other age groups. However, it kills people in all age groups at a higher frequency than any other "seasonal" disease and continuing life as normal probably puts us in the exact same economical position as we're in now.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,861
:sergio:

- - - Updated - - -



That is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.
Not even Trump is this dumb.
My parents are both doctors, my girlfriend works in the lab for Johnson & Johnson and specializes in infectious diseases and I myself am specialized in medical law.

I have many, many resources regarding this issue.

What I'm saying is not the dumbest thing you've heard in a while. It's something you just can't grasp yet, because you're in a media induced panic mode.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,861
I hear you but isn't the plan to minimize exposure to try and keep the sick down to a manageable amount at any one time? almost all of us will become exposed at some point and most will barely even get sick/ or develope antibodies but this way there is never too big an amount of the at risk population piling up outside hospitals?

Without intervention the projections for dead in the US would be 2 million. Nobody in government can just let that happen.

Another thing to consider is the growing consensus that China has been lying about this and the virus could be even deadlier and more transmissible then we know. That china's official numbers may be 1/20th to 1/40th of the actual count.
Flatten the curve, yes.

But again, closing schools make no sense. Yes the occasional kid dies. But children are not the reason hospitals are overrun. Neither are 30-40 year olds.

Also I'm very uncomfortable with 60 something politicians calling the shots in this case.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Mokku

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2019
593
Sure.

But think about the nature of this virus. This isn't going to be gone in september. Or january 2021. It'll just keep returning. Hell, it might mutate and become more deadly.

Shutting everything down just isn't the solution.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
If you assume that everyone gets the virus around the same time, let's say under 60s can survive without hospital treatment but of those that are old and high risk (asthmatic, diabetic etc) how many of those would survive? You have 100,000 ICU beds but 1,000,000 that need treatment then 900,000 are likely to die. That's a heavy price to pay for allowing kids back to school.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,861
What are they saying?
One of them actually tested positive for Covid 19 a few days ago and is quite sick.

Of course they are worried. Everyone is worried. My mom said this would be a disaster a month ago and there's no denying that it is a disaster in any sense of the world. Mostly though they are worried about the virus mutating and becoming more deadly.

But destroying the economic prospects of young people isn't helpful.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

campionesidd

Senior Member
Mar 16, 2013
8,663
If you assume that everyone gets the virus around the same time, let's say under 60s can survive without hospital treatment but of those that are old and high risk (asthmatic, diabetic etc) how many of those would survive? You have 100,000 ICU beds but 1,000,000 that need treatment then 900,000 are likely to die. That's a heavy price to pay for allowing kids back to school.
Also, 40-50% of the people who are hospitalized are under 40. This disease may mostly kill old people, but it can and does affect everyone.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,861
If you assume that everyone gets the virus around the same time, let's say under 60s can survive without hospital treatment but of those that are old and high risk (asthmatic, diabetic etc) how many of those would survive? You have 100,000 ICU beds but 1,000,000 that need treatment then 900,000 are likely to die. That's a heavy price to pay for allowing kids back to school.
Let me put this in words that everyone is able to understand: old people die.

You can cure an old person of a disease. But he's just going to get something else and die of that.

Destroying your entire society to 'save' 85 year olds is dumb as fuck.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,861
They don't die and hardly ever develop symptoms, but they can then spread it among each other, to parents and grandparents.
Yes. So don't allow them to visit their grandparents. Problem solved.

And if old people do get it, remember this: old people die.

One of the reasons we are in this mess is that we seem to have trouble grasping this reality.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
69,934
Yes. So don't allow them to visit their grandparents. Problem solved.

And if old people do get it, remember this: old people die.

One of the reasons we are in this mess is that we seem to have trouble grasping this reality.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
How many people under the age of 80 have died so far?
 

Kyle

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
71,901
Flatten the curve, yes.

But again, closing schools make no sense. Yes the occasional kid dies. But children are not the reason hospitals are overrun. Neither are 30-40 year olds.

Also I'm very uncomfortable with 60 something politicians calling the shots in this case.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
yes. children aren't getting sick which means they carry it but don't stay home and so you end up with schools full of them that are virus incubators. They don't wash their hands, cough on each other etc so they all contract it and then take it home.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,861
What about households with multiple generations living under the same roof? This is a common thing in italy afaik.
For all I care you send all people above 60 to improvised concentration camps. Hell, it would probably boost the economy by having to pay people to build them.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
30,621
No. It's a serious virus and it is killing people.

The vast majority of (European) casualties are over 80 however.

There is no reason to shut down our entire economy because old people die. Let me make this easy to understand: old people die all the time. And you know why? Because being old makes you frail and weak.

Do we need to take general measures? Absolutely. We need to do everything we can to protect people.

But did we need to shut down schools and essentially destroy the careers of 20-30 year olds? No, we did not. In fact a lot of scientists even advised against closing schools.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
You are entirely ignoring that 40-50% of the hospitalized people are between 20-60, dependent on which country. If you allow this virus to run unchecked and uncontrolled you overwhelm the hospital system and then young people who would easily survive this or get over it without too much damage while cared for will start dying because they can’t get access to ventilators they need, or end up with long term severe lung damage.

You limit the spread to avoid overwhelming the health care system and massively increasing the mortality rate among all age groups, not just to save old people.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,861
You are entirely ignoring that 40-50% of the hospitalized people are between 20-60, dependent on which country. If you allow this virus to run unchecked and uncontrolled you overwhelm the hospital system and then young people who would easily survive this or get over it without too much damage while cared for will start dying because they can’t get access to ventilators they need, or end up with long term severe lung damage.

You limit the spread to avoid overwhelming the health care system and massively increasing the mortality rate among all age groups, not just to save old people.
How many young people end up on ic?

Because, you know, we could also just not treat 80 year olds, precisely because they could drain the hospital system.
 

AFL_ITALIA

MAGISTERIAL
Jun 17, 2011
18,265
How many young people end up on ic?

Because, you know, we could also just not treat 80 year olds, precisely because they could drain the hospital system.
UK: "the audit suggested that men are at much higher risk from the virus – seven in ten of all ICU patients were male, while 30% of men in critical care were under 60, compared to just 15% of women."
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ve-care-uk-patients-50-per-cent-survival-rate

France: "More than half of novel coronavirus patients in intensive care in France are younger than the age of 60, according to the country’s top health official."
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...88-more-than-half-of-french-icu-patients-with

No specific ICU statistics, but NYC hospitalization rates by age:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-daily-data-summary-hospitalizations.pdf
 

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
30,621
How many young people end up on ic?

Because, you know, we could also just not treat 80 year olds, precisely because they could drain the hospital system.
Early CDC reports said 14% hospitalized and 2% ICU of 20-44 age group.

21% hospitalized and 5.4% ICU of 45-54.

20% hospitalized and 5% ICU of 55-64

US has over two hundred million people between 20-65. If you don’t limit the spread of this and allow 80+ percent of the population to get it this year, at ~3-4% of 20-64 year olds needing ICU, that’s 6-8 million people. Good luck with that :baus:

And that completely ignores 65+. Not just 80+

- - - Updated - - -

UK: "the audit suggested that men are at much higher risk from the virus – seven in ten of all ICU patients were male, while 30% of men in critical care were under 60, compared to just 15% of women."
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ve-care-uk-patients-50-per-cent-survival-rate

France: "More than half of novel coronavirus patients in intensive care in France are younger than the age of 60, according to the country’s top health official."
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...88-more-than-half-of-french-icu-patients-with

No specific ICU statistics, but NYC hospitalization rates by age:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-daily-data-summary-hospitalizations.pdf
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/21190033/coronavirus-covid-19-deaths-by-age
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 6)