Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (82 Viewers)

[Seven]

Picking 2017-18 for it's higher numbers eh. lol According to the CDC there were 34,200 flu deaths in 2018-19 flu season in the US.

Latest estimates are that there will be between 100,000 and 240,000 deaths this year due to Coronavirus with current social distancing measures to mitigate it. Unmitigated, allowing COVID-19 to just spread, estimates from experts in the US, including the CDC you quote figures from are in the ~2 million deaths range for COVID-19, so maybe pipe down with the retardation about this being at all comparable to seasonal flu which we allow to freely spread through the population each year and still only kills ~50,000/year in the US. This is an entirely different animal and if we treat it like seasonal flu, it will likely kill millions according to the experts.

I'm sure you won't shut up though and will instead continue with the cringe.

- - - Updated - - -

Spain just passed 10,000 dead.

It’s looking bad there today. They may pass Italy in deaths over the next couple weeks. Numbers already at 6120 new cases and 616 dead for today.

If you had cared to read my posts carefully, which you did not, you would have read that I have suggested an approach entirely different to that of the seasonal flu.

But flu related deaths mean something. It means we have come to accept that, sometimes, people die because they are old and frail. For whatever reason we do not accept that reality when it comes to corona.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[pavelnel]

Picking 2017-18 for it's higher numbers eh. lol According to the CDC there were 34,200 flu deaths in 2018-19 flu season in the US.

Latest estimates are that there will be between 100,000 and 240,000 deaths this year due to Coronavirus with current social distancing measures to mitigate it. Unmitigated, allowing COVID-19 to just spread, estimates from experts in the US, including the CDC you quote figures from are in the ~2 million deaths range for COVID-19, so maybe pipe down with the retardation about this being at all comparable to seasonal flu which we allow to freely spread through the population each year and still only kills ~50,000/year in the US. This is an entirely different animal and if we treat it like seasonal flu, it will likely kill millions according to the experts.

I'm sure you won't shut up though and will instead continue with the cringe.

This MF (Covid-19 not Seven LOL) is very contagious. I do not blame Chinese people for anything but Chinese govt should be held responsible. They have been lying the whole time. But Europe and USA should also be blamed for their very late and inconsistent response to the disease.

 

[Dostoevsky]

Picking 2017-18 for it's higher numbers eh. lol According to the CDC there were 34,200 flu deaths in 2018-19 flu season in the US.

Latest estimates are that there will be between 100,000 and 240,000 deaths this year due to Coronavirus with current social distancing measures to mitigate it. Unmitigated, allowing COVID-19 to just spread, estimates from experts in the US, including the CDC you quote figures from are in the ~2 million deaths range for COVID-19, so maybe pipe down with the retardation about this being at all comparable to seasonal flu which we allow to freely spread through the population each year and still only kills ~50,000/year in the US. This is an entirely different animal and if we treat it like seasonal flu, it will likely kill millions according to the experts.

I'm sure you won't shut up though and will instead continue with the cringe.

- - - Updated - - -

Spain just passed 10,000 dead.

It’s looking bad there today. They may pass Italy in deaths over the next couple weeks. Numbers already at 6120 new cases and 616 dead for today.

Man, this does not look promising. WTF, that's insane... fuck.

 

[Post Ironic]

If you had cared to read my posts carefully, which you did not, you would have read that I have suggested an approach entirely different to that of the seasonal flu.

But flu related deaths mean something. It means we have come to accept that, sometimes, people die because they are old and frail. For whatever reason we do not accept that reality when it comes to corona.

lol

You suggested we just don’t treat anyone over 80 and let them die a slow and painful death entirely alone.

Of course we accept that people die as they get old. This doesn’t mean we need to walk them off a cliff at 80, just for kicks. Everyone accepts that some old people will die from COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore them and let millions die. Nice leap of logic, bud. Never mind that the death rate from COViD-19 is also very high in the 65-80 category.

I’m done discussing this with you. You just spout nonsense and ignore or minimize the numbers we have and make illogical comparisons.

2.2 million deaths from Covid-19, swamped hospitals with millions of sick people, and a million plus needing ventilators and ICU care to survive. Your plan doesn’t just kill the 80 year olds, it kills a large number of people between 20-80 who will have to be left to die once we run out of ventilators and space in ICUs (even without 80+ this would happen) to save their lives.

- - - Updated - - -

Man, this does not look promising. WTF, that's insane... fuck.

Yeah. It’s definitely scary. And we still don’t really know how quickly the curve will flatten and the peak numbers will drop. Plus if only ~10% get it in this wave, as soon as we relax measures to stop it, a second wave could wash right over the 90% without antibodies. Still very unpredictable.

 

[lgorTudor]

This virus could really help overpopulation and climate change. Kill of 20% plus of the boomers and leave a lot of Gen-Xers with shortened life spans due to lung damage.

Also it has been documented that during corona crisis the number of drowned african migrants in the mediterranean sea it at its absolute lowest.

It's almost as if those so called refugees only set out when they are guaranteed to be picked up by western Volkszersetzer

 

[Seven]

lol

You suggested we just don’t treat anyone over 80 and let them die a slow and painful death entirely alone.

Of course we accept that people die as they get old. This doesn’t mean we need to walk them off a cliff at 80, just for kicks. Everyone accepts that some old people will die from COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore them and let millions die. Nice leap of logic, bud. Never mind that the death rate from COViD-19 is also very high in the 65-80 category.

I’m done discussing this with you. You just spout nonsense and ignore or minimize the numbers we have and make illogical comparisons.

2.2 million deaths from Covid-19, swamped hospitals with millions of sick people, and a million plus needing ventilators and ICU care to survive. Your plan doesn’t just kill the 80 year olds, it kills a large number of people between 20-80 who will have to be left to die once we run out of ventilators and space in ICUs (even without 80+ this would happen) to save their lives.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah. It’s definitely scary. And we still don’t really know how quickly the curve will flatten and the peak numbers will drop. Plus if only ~10% get it in this wave, as soon as we relax measures to stop it, a second wave could wash right over the 90% without antibodies. Still very unpredictable.

I never said we should walk them off a cliff nor that we should ignore COVID-19 nor that we should treat it as the seasonal flu.

You're worried. I get that. So am I. But it's common courtesy not to put words in other people's mouths.

Yeah, Trump came in at a very onedimensional angle: protect the economy. But 'save everyone and shut down everything to save everyone' is, unfortunately, a very onedimensional way of looking at things as well. I agree that it might be a somewhat utilitarian point of view. But in the long run you have to ask yourself who you are saving, for how long you are saving them and what other deep suffering you might be causing in the process.

It's an incredibly complicated issue and oversimplifying it to the point of letting everything come to a standstill is going to hurt us.

Just look at the example from India I posted.

 

[Red]

...while the total number of cases in the country rose to 101,238, the spread of the disease appears to be continuing to slow during the so-called “stabilisation phase”.


Between Wednesday and Thursday, there was an 8% increase in the number of new cases, consistent with recent days and well down on the first half of March, when cases were increasing by around 20% a day. By the end of March, the daily increase rate had fallen to 12%.


“Over recent days, the number of daily cases has been slowing down,” Spain’s health minister, Salvador Illa, told a press conference on Thursday morning.


“Spain is the second most affected country in Europe [after Italy]. The daily increase in cases in comparison to yesterday was 8%.”


Illa added that the area around Madrid remained the hardest hit in Spain. The region has 32,155 confirmed cases of the virus and has reported 4,175 deaths.


Once again, the number of new cases there hovered around the 8% mark between Wednesday and Thursday.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...0866297e9f58e5#block-5e85be118f0866297e9f58e5

 

[Strickland]

Looking at Covid stats I cant help, but shake the feeling this might take half a year, a year or even until we have official medicin available.

The main strategy for most countries is flatten the curve, spread the timeline and limit the amount of infected at once. But it leads to 1-3% of the population being infected during the course of a month, if we assume we need to reach 40-50% until we resume as usual, the timeline gets very long.

Perhaps this is not fair, but wouldnt it be better to impose grave restrictions to everyone above 60 until we've found the medical solution and let everyone else resume daily activity?

 

[Seven]

Looking at Covid stats I cant help, but shake the feeling this might take half a year, a year or even until we have official medicin available.

The main strategy for most countries is flatten the curve, spread the timeline and limit the amount of infected at once. But it leads to 1-3% of the population being infected during the course of a month, if we assume we need to reach 40-50% until we resume as usual, the timeline gets very long.

Perhaps this is not fair, but wouldnt it be better to impose grave restrictions to everyone above 60 until we've found the medical solution and let everyone else resume daily activity?

We're beyond that point now, but yes, yes it would have been better.

 

[KB824]

Narrative?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html

You can say that about practically any disease or pandemic that has ever existed. But the going narrative was that it was implied that not only were the elderly and those with underlying conditions the most at risk, but that they were the ONLY ones at risk. Hence, the clusterfuck of inconsistencies in this country with social distancing, stay at home orders, and the like.

Fuck, Spring Break in Florida was Exhibit A as to how people of a certain age group were convinced that it couldn't happen to them. Welp.

 

[Seven]

You can say that about practically any disease or pandemic that has ever existed. But the going narrative was that it was implied that not only were the elderly and those with underlying conditions the most at risk, but that they were the ONLY ones at risk. Hence, the clusterfuck of inconsistencies in this country with social distancing, stay at home orders, and the like.

Fuck, Spring Break in Florida was Exhibit A as to how people of a certain age group were convinced that it couldn't happen to them. Welp.

You're always at risk. People seem to have this misconception that the flu is harmless if you're in your 30's. It's not. It can lead to impaired cardiac function and death, even in younger people.

 

[Strickland]

We're beyond that point now, but yes, yes it would have been better.

I'm just a couch expert, but why are we beyond that point?

Restrict the elderly to their homes, provide them with the basics and let everyone else get back to business with sensible caution, like not resuming public activities with more than a couple hundred attending. The curve is too flat in most places, we need to eliminate the risk group from the equation and make it steeper.

 

[Seven]

I'm just a couch expert, but why are we beyond that point?

Restrict the elderly to their homes, provide them with the basics and let everyone else get back to business with sensible caution, like not resuming public activities with more than a couple hundred attending. The curve is too flat in most places, we need to eliminate the risk group from thenl equation and make it steeper.

Because you can't shut down your entire society and then tell people everything is fine now and they should go back to work.

 

[Ronn]

40% of hospitalizations in NYC are outside of risk group age range. You’d still overwhelm your healthcare system if you isolate them all.

 

[Strickland]

Because you can't shut down your entire society and then tell people everything is fine now and they should go back to work.

Why not, people will be afraid to resume? Most gov have already stated that the lions share of the people will be infected regardless, so its a matter of when you get it

 

[s4tch]

Perhaps this is not fair, but wouldnt it be better to impose grave restrictions to everyone above 60 until we've found the medical solution and let everyone else resume daily activity?

here we have some pretty serious restrictions. those over 65 can only visit stores between 9:00 and 12:00; outside that period, they aren't receiving any service. in that period it's only them who are allowed in the stores. otherwise, they can only leave their home for work, feeding animals, or recreational walk.

but the worldwide situation is out of hand already, so it can only delay the inevitable, and just as the germans predicted some weeks ago, ~60-70% of the population will eventually catch the virus.

also, about resuming daily activity: a large portion of the hospitalized patients (so those, who actually have severe symptomes) is under 60. to keep the medical systems working, so to avoid overloading the systems, you can't leave the solution to the good old herd immunity method. that's what "flattening the curve" is all about.

 

[Strickland]

40% of hospitalizations in NYC are outside of risk group age range. You’d still overwhelm your healthcare system if you isolate them all.

Whats that in total numbers not %? Whats the demographic situation in NYC, is it standard or are there more young people in general?

 

[Ronn]

Whats that in total numbers not %? Whats the demographic situation in NYC, is it standard or are there more young people in general?

You can find the demography online, but I’m pretty sure no healthcare system has capacity for 40% of its residents.

 

[Strickland]

here we have some pretty serious restrictions. those over 65 can only visit stores between 9:00 and 12:00; outside that period, they aren't receiving any service. in that period it's only them who are allowed in the stores. otherwise, they can only leave their home for work, feeding animals, or recreational walk.

but the worldwide situation is out of hand already, so it can only delay the inevitable, and just as the germans predicted some weeks ago, ~60-70% of the population will eventually catch the virus.

also, about resuming daily activity: a large portion of the hospitalized patients (so those, who actually have severe symptomes) is under 60. to keep the medical systems working, so to avoid overloading the systems, you can't leave the solution to the good old herd immunity method. that's what "flattening the curve" is all about.

Ive not seen reliable global hospitalization numbers (please link me if you have), but the fatality numbers are a lot different than what you're saying. People 0-50 years old account for a couple percent of the deaths, people 0-60 up to five or six. Thats not a large portion. I think theres logic in isolating the elderly and maybe not resuming totally, but loosening the restrictions for the rest so that we dont wind up in an ugly recession.

- - - Updated - - -

You can find the demography online, but I’m pretty sure no healthcare system has capacity for 40% of its residents.

The theory I've read from WHO is that 80% of the infected get light or no symptoms at all, for younger people that percentage probably rises significantly. No idea where you got the 40% of residents.

 

[Seven]

You can find the demography online, but I’m pretty sure no healthcare system has capacity for 40% of its residents.

It would be 40% of the people needing to be hospitalized (which is a minority) of the people having symptoms, which again are a minority. It's still a lot of people, don't get me wrong. But it's at least 40 times less people than you are suggesting.