The coronavirus

[Tom]

150 million of the new quick results tests are being delivered NOW.
100 million to the states directly for FREE and the rest to high risk groups.

Trump - git'n er down while DEMS do NOTHING of any value to anyone - holding up financial relief while filling their own freezers with ice cream.


In a national emergency, the LAST people you want to see are DEMOCRATS.

[Richie]

here are some facts
lots of college aged kids are getting something
slight cough
maybe a sore throat , this lasts a day or so
then no taste for 2 weeks
lots and lots of them
but no one knows because they don't stop doing anything, they feel ok, and know one tells their parents or anyone
I am seeing it

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Case Fatality Rate is an obviously idiotic way of measuring anything meaningful.

Everyone everywhere knows that way more people have been infected than tested positive. Many cases are asymptomatic, the symptoms were mild enough that the person did not go to the doctor to get tested, or early in the pandemic they didn’t have the testing capacity so when doctors suspected you had COVID 19 they sent you home and told you to quarantine unless you got much worse. Then you were brought in, tested, and hospitalized.

Several numbers make sense to track.

You want to know how many people have been infected, how many people got hospitalized out all those infected, how many people needed ICU out of all those infected, how many died out of all those infected, how many people were asymptomatic or had very mild cases out of all those infected Etc... You want to do that for as many groups as possible to find out where the risks are. The ONE THING THAT IS TOTALLY MEANINGLESS is any percentage related to measured cases because the “case number” is woefully inaccurate in describing the situation.

I said there were better metrics than either the "Infection Fatality Ratio" and the "Case-Fatality rate".

Originally Posted by me

And btw, many of the metrics will not be known precisely until it is over. There are other relevant metrics like total number of fatalities at this time after X no of months..

The fact that Covid-19 kills more than the flu is quickly evident by “the number of deaths that exceed what is seen in typical years,” the academic journal Nature reported in September. In other words, deaths from Covid-19 are not deaths that ‘would happen anyway’.

So when you Trumpites use a metric showing a low risk, and yes I agree it is low, but then conclude "low risk infectious diseases are not worth the bother, you are hypocrites.

There are aprrox. 38.000 fatal car crashes annually or 3167 per month

There have been approx 210,000 deaths from covid-19 over 8 months, or 17500 per month

Covid-19 is so far 5.5 timers as lethal

We have instituted seat belts, airbags, progressive crush zones in cars. We require drivers to have licenses, pass exams, driver's ed and everyone be insured. DUI penalties are severe.

Why bother with all these intrusions on personal freedoms, fretting about such a extremely low, LOWER risk than covid activity?

38,000 auto deaths divided by a 350 million USA population, is 0.011%

[davew]

OMG. so many die in car crashes? For the greater good, we need to lower the speed limit to 10 mph, which would cut that number drastically and save lives.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

I said there were better metrics than either the "Infection Fatality Ratio" and the "Case-Fatality rate".

So when you Trumpites

1. CFR is so useless and misleading, it should never even be mentioned.

2. I'm not a Trumpite. All I'm trying to do is get at reality for my own well being and the well being of others.

I'll leave turning this discussion into a political argument to you.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

1. CFR is so useless and misleading, it should never even be mentioned.

2. I'm not a Trumpite. All I'm trying to do is get at reality for my own well being and the well being of others.

I'll leave turning this discussion into a political argument to you.

Neither should the infection fatality ratio. And in no way the overall survival percentages as the only metrics for a judgement call about life and extensive sufferings and death

Did you read what I said about the political hypocrisy in terms of automobile fatalities? So when someone brings up the justification for letting lots of people die, to be able re-open things unsafely .....the low risk percentages......

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

The US govt last week updated the survival rates (i.e., IF infected) for Covid19:

0-19 99.997%
20-49 99.98%
50-69 99.5%
70+ 94.6%

And others buy into this?

I am also as you said.......

"Trying to do is get at reality for my own well being and the well being of others."

[classhandicapper]

Did you read what I said about the political hypocrisy in terms of automobile fatalities? So when someone brings up the justification for letting lots of people die, to be able re-open things unsafely .....the low risk percentages......

It's not my job to draw the moral lines on these matters.

But if you look at all the deaths and realize 40% or more are in nursing homes and assisted living and a lot of the rest are people with multiple co morbidities, you should probably have a different policy (like protect the most vulnerable as well as possible) and draw the line differently than if every individual was at equal risk. Otherwise, ridiculous suggestions like making the speed limit 10 MPH to reduce deaths make sense too.

There is risk in everything. People die of these risks every day. The idea is to reduce the risks and protect people without going so over the top you are destroying the quality of life for very small gains. It's a difficult moral debate and difficult to implement, but protecting every single life from every single risk while destroying the society is not an answer.

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by sammy the sage

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavir...193228644.html

"Positive cases in the state have been rising steadily over the last few weeks, according to ABC7.

So the real data suggests only a very small percentage of people die, if the trend continues or as it seems the total of death over 200k but the percentage stays the same or more looking like improvement with a smaller percentage of death with therapeutics and improved Covid-19 care. It seems immature point in time to formulate the whole picture. Right now we have an increase number of tests and some data suggesting some false positives at the same time the number of deaths trending down. So the disease itself is more complex to understand unless you are in fact a sickly person who has to be doubly careful.

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's not my job to draw the moral lines on these matters.

But if you look at all the deaths and realize 40% or more are in nursing homes and assisted living and a lot of the rest are people with multiple co morbidities, you should probably have a different policy (like protect the most vulnerable as well as possible) and draw the line differently than if every individual was at equal risk. Otherwise, ridiculous suggestions like making the speed limit 10 MPH to reduce deaths make sense too.

There is risk in everything. People die of these risks every day. The idea is to reduce the risks and protect people without going so over the top you are destroying the quality of life for very small gains. It's a difficult moral debate and difficult to implement, but protecting every single life from every single risk while destroying the society is not an answer.

excellent post...

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's not my job to draw the moral lines on these matters.

But if you look at all the deaths and realize 40% or more are in nursing homes and assisted living and a lot of the rest are people with multiple co morbidities, you should probably have a different policy (like protect the most vulnerable as well as possible) and draw the line differently than if every individual was at equal risk. Otherwise, ridiculous suggestions like making the speed limit 10 MPH to reduce deaths make sense too.

There is risk in everything. People die of these risks every day. The idea is to reduce the risks and protect people without going so over the top you are destroying the quality of life for very small gains. It's a difficult moral debate and difficult to implement, but protecting every single life from every single risk while destroying the society is not an answer.

Yes, an excellent post!

Since the system would not let me do it, consider this as another rep point.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's not my job to draw the moral lines on these matters.

But if you look at all the deaths and realize 40% or more are in nursing homes and assisted living and a lot of the rest are people with multiple co morbidities, you should probably have a different policy (like protect the most vulnerable as well as possible) and draw the line differently than if every individual was at equal risk. Otherwise, ridiculous suggestions like making the speed limit 10 MPH to reduce deaths make sense too.

There is risk in everything. People die of these risks every day. The idea is to reduce the risks and protect people without going so over the top you are destroying the quality of life for very small gains. It's a difficult moral debate and difficult to implement, but protecting every single life from every single risk while destroying the society is not an answer.

It is all our jobs to deal with the virus in the ways that are most effective. Damn, I thought that what this thread and all the other threads on O.T. were addressing?

When the virus first hit, the full extent of it's effect on the elderly was not understood. Not here, not internationally. Nor was the asymptomatic transmission by nursing home and retirement home staff members.

Sure, that nexus was among the most vulnerable.

However, recently the mean age of covid patients has moved towards the younger. Although the elderly are still the most vulnerable, they and patients with co morbidities still should be protected, all can be protected by policies instituted by countries that have done much better jobs than we have.

We have 4% of the world's population and 25% of the coronavirus deaths

I have posted those strategies repeatedly starting with dramatically ramping up testing. If the same effort applied towards vaccines had initially been aimed at rapid response testing, say enacting the Defense Production Act, a strategy of.....

1)-Rapid response testing.
2)-Contact tracing including extensive data management.
3)-Epidemiological Observation
4)- If needed separation and quarantining.

Could be done

I would also add the Defense Production Act, for mass public distribution of N95 masks and PPE.

If Rapid response testing was available, we would know EXACTLY who is vulnerable. The infected, no matter the age. Re-opening the marketplace and schools. would have happened much earlier and the economy would not be on life support.

Going out shopping would not be a crap shoot.

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

It is all our jobs to deal with the virus in the ways that are most effective. Damn, I thought that what this thread and all the other threads on O.T. were addressing?

When the virus first hit, the full extent of it's effect on the elderly was not understood. Not here, not internationally. Nor was the asymptomatic transmission by nursing home and retirement home staff members.

Sure, that nexus was among the most vulnerable.

However, recently the mean age of covid patients has moved towards the younger. Although the elderly are still the most vulnerable, they and patients with co morbidities still should be protected, all can be protected by policies instituted by countries that have done much better jobs than we have.

We have 4% of the world's population and 25% of the coronavirus deaths

I have posted those strategies repeatedly starting with dramatically ramping up testing. If the same effort applied towards vaccines had initially been aimed at rapid response testing, say enacting the Defense Production Act, a strategy of.....

1)-Rapid response testing.
2)-Contact tracing including extensive data management.
3)-Epidemiological Observation
4)- If needed separation and quarantining.

Could be done

I would also add the Defense Production Act, for mass public distribution of N95 masks and PPE.

If Rapid response testing was available, we would know EXACTLY who is vulnerable. The infected, no matter the age. Re-opening the marketplace and schools. would have happened much earlier and the economy would not be on life support.

Going out shopping would not be a crap shoot.

Wow, just like Biden ... so you would do things that Trump is doing or has done. Some of these things take longer than snapping your fingers.

[Tom]

Biden and hcap - hindsight is 20/10.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

Biden and hcap - hindsight is 20/10.

Called for ramping up massive testing and the rest in late March.
Added N95 masks later when masks' advantages became known

I believe you were bitching about not being able to find "Franco-American spaghetti O's", about the same time.

Any luck lately?

[Tom]

I was wearing a mask, social distancing, washing my hands, avoiding unnecessary crowds.....staying home.

What the F* more did I need to know to keep myself safe?

And yes, Spaghetti and MEATBALLLS, not O's.
And Ravioli. Got a good stock.
Thanks to my man Trump getting the economy back going as fast as possible.

I will certainly stock up if Biden wins, because food will be in very short supply, along with every other thing we need to live on. You know, when the moron shuts down the country.