quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
^Because of the increased need of assistance to breathe. Compounded by the fact that citizens are not that healthy (co-mobidity can trump age). Imagine soar throat on friday, fever on Saturday, cough on Sunday, and pneumonia on Monday, and ventilator on Tuesday.
Herd immunity too risky without vaccines.

And at the rate it spreads. It is how easily it spreads.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Posts come so fast I haven't kept up with every line and every one but I'm curious. If this was discussed, point me to the page and move on.

From what I know for most people, you'll get it and not know it, barely know it, or get sick 4-6 days and move on. Once done you have an immunity.

Why don't we quarantine the most vulnerable (over 60, immune or respiratory compromised, etc) and let everyone else get it, recover and become immune thus preventing spread. Wouldn't that stop it in the same amount of time without wrecking the economy?

That was essentially how Boris Johnson described the UK's plan at the end of the week before last, before everyone else in his government jumped up and said "no, no, that's not the plan."

https://www.theatlantic.com/he...oris-johnson/608065/

The question is, first, whether it is even possible to protect the vulnerable populations, and second, whether even just letting healthy, under-60 people get sick would overload hospitals.

There are some reports that even though the mortality rate is low for that group, a significant number of them still require lengthy hospitalization not to die.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Posts come so fast I haven't kept up with every line and every one but I'm curious. If this was discussed, point me to the page and move on.

From what I know for most people, you'll get it and not know it, barely know it, or get sick 4-6 days and move on. Once done you have an immunity.

Why don't we quarantine the most vulnerable (over 60, immune or respiratory compromised, etc) and let everyone else get it, recover and become immune thus preventing spread. Wouldn't that stop it in the same amount of time without wrecking the economy?

Because logic is in short supply.

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
^Because of the increased need of assistance to breathe. Compounded by the fact that citizens are not that healthy (co-mobidity can trump age). Imagine soar throat on friday, fever on Saturday, cough on Sunday, and pneumonia on Monday, and ventilator on Tuesday.
Herd immunity too risky without vaccines.

Right but they've already said its not everyone. 80% recover at home with no medical care. A % of those are barely aware, or aren't even aware they have it. If everyone that got it needed a ventilator within days of exposure clearly that won't work, but that's not what I'm hearing from Dr's and certainly not what we're hearing from recovered patients.

On hospitalizations vs deaths, early info on ~2500 cases in the US from CDC:



https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...an-face-severe-cases

In this data, death is heavily biased by age, but hospitalization and ICU care is not nearly as much (except under-20).

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
^Because of the increased need of assistance to breathe. Compounded by the fact that citizens are not that healthy (co-mobidity can trump age). Imagine soar throat on friday, fever on Saturday, cough on Sunday, and pneumonia on Monday, and ventilator on Tuesday.
Herd immunity too risky without vaccines.

Last weekend, I posted this research report on Italy's statistics. In the report, Table 1 contained a list of the other comorbidities which Google translated (it was in Italian) as:
* Cardiopatia ischemica (Ischemic heart disease) 33%
* Fibrillazione atriale (A-fib) 24.5%
* Ictus (stroke) 9.6%
* pertensione arteriosa (hypertension) 76.1%
* Diabete mellito (Diabetes) 35.5%
* Demenza (Dementia) 6.8%
* BPCO (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) 13.2%
* Cancro attivo negli ultimi 5 anni (Active cancer in the past 5 years) 20.3%
* Epatopatia cronica (Chronic hepatopathy) 3.1%
* Insufficienza renale cronica (Chronic renal failure) 18%

Three of those comorbidities (high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer) start becoming more and more common in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. In my county, here are the demographics:

5% teens

5% 20s

5% 30s

40% 40s

35% 50s

5% 60s

5% 90s

The hospitalized ones are 40s, 50s, and 90s.

In other words, lots of productive Americans who lead normal lives have high blood pressure (1/3 of all Americans) or diabetes (10.5% of all Americans).

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Posts come so fast I haven't kept up with every line and every one but I'm curious. If this was discussed, point me to the page and move on.

From what I know for most people, you'll get it and not know it, barely know it, or get sick 4-6 days and move on. Once done you have an immunity.

Why don't we quarantine the most vulnerable (over 60, immune or respiratory compromised, etc) and let everyone else get it, recover and become immune thus preventing spread. Wouldn't that stop it in the same amount of time without wrecking the economy?

That was essentially how Boris Johnson described the UK's plan at the end of the week before last, before everyone else in his government jumped up and said "no, no, that's not the plan."

https://www.theatlantic.com/he...oris-johnson/608065/

The question is, first, whether it is even possible to protect the vulnerable populations, and second, whether even just letting healthy, under-60 people get sick would overload hospitals.

There are some reports that even though the mortality rate is low for that group, a significant number of them still require lengthy hospitalization not to die.

I believe seeing 20% of hospitalization in NY with COVID were 40 and under.

That cousin of mine who was tested in Dallas seems fine, at this juncture. He's still in his boonker (apt.).

I am (selfishly) especially pleased. I, still, feel nothing from all of this.

Don't take that for a tone of denial or the like.

Tentative relief, is more like it, or maybe skeptical optimism.

Hurry up and wait (on the results).

I'd like to fast forward to the After Action Report.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Why don't we quarantine the most vulnerable (over 60, immune or respiratory compromised, etc) and let everyone else get it, recover and become immune thus preventing spread. Wouldn't that stop it in the same amount of time without wrecking the economy?

Would that it were that simple.

First of all: I can't even begin to imagine the logistics of fairly cleanly and effectively completely isolating the entire population of the country over sixty years old. Particularly considering this group is large. Very large. These are the boomers.

Secondly: It's not just those over sixty. It's also those with co-morbidities such as diabetes, cardio-vascular disease, cancer, etc. Diabetes, in case you missed it, is currently a fairly significant health problem in the U.S., due to the obesity problem we have here. I believe it might even be the fastest-growing disease in the U.S. atm.

Finally: Age and co-morbidities primarily affect the outcomes. Even without those, people much younger than sixty, healthy people with no complicating underlying health issues, are being hospitalized for complications related to Covid-19. Some, few, have even succumbed to complications from the disease.

(I see, after-the-fact, maladat had posted a graph illustrating my points.)

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I'm not sure how she could do this. I recall a bill being passed in 2010 that prevented riders that are not directly connected with the content of the bill. There were other provisions of that which significantly complicated a situation I was working on for my company at the time. I had met with a congressional aid who explained it very clearly.

It's being tied to a funding bill, and anything theoretically having anything to do with solving the crisis can be funded somehow. At the same time, any restrictions Congress imposes on itself always have exceptions for emergencies. Finally, if Congress passes it and the President signs it and the Government enforces it, who's going to take Pelosi to court over what the court is legally bound to treat as (at worst) a procedural faux pas? The logical course would be to challenge the law itself.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
In this data, death is heavily biased by age, but hospitalization and ICU care is not nearly as much (except under-20).

You know, looking just at hospitalizations and ICU admissions, once you get past the 20-44 year olds it really kinda just looks like demographics. There are fewer people between 55-64 than there are people who are 65-74 and slightly fewer than there are between 45-54, and the population drops off kinda sharply after you get past the 65-74 year olds.

see http://knoema.com/infographics...y-age-and-generation and scroll down slightly

Is that graph just showing us a relatively even spread across the population of Americans who are 40 years old or older?

Wisconsin is going "Shelter in Place" tomorrow. The place is so densely populated, you know. I look outside my house and the nearest mammal is 200 yards away; it's a cow.

quote:

Originally posted by whanson_wi:
Wisconsin is going "Shelter in Place" tomorrow. The place is so densely populated, you know. I look outside my house and the nearest mammal is 200 yards away; it's a cow.

*************************************

New Mexico starting "Shelter in Place" too.

.

America's Wuhan-China virus testing is a complete fucking failure. Is Wuhan-China the end of all life or is it a mere inconvenience. Testing might tell us useful information. But, no. The incompetent big brains can't pull their heads out of their collective asses and actually accomplish what many other nations have managed.

But they tell us that eventually we'll have the bestest tests ever. Ever? When? Who knows? A week? A month? A year? A 100 years?

In the year 2120, the CDC finely comes out with the worlds perfect Wuhan-China Virus test. Unfortunately, by this point the US has been reduced to a pauper state and can only afford to produce a half dozen tests. The US thus requests emergency financial assistance from Haiti.

Meanwhile, back in 2020...
Americans have a greater chance of winning the lottery than getting a Wuhan-China virus test.
Americans have a greater chance of being killed by terrorists than getting a Wuhan-China virus test.
Americans have a greater chance of being abducted by anal-probing space aliens than getting a Wuhan-China virus test.

All those responsible for this fuck-up should be sent to Gitmo for the next 100 years. We'll let them out when the tests are ready.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
America's Wuhan-China virus testing is a complete fucking failure. Is Wuhan-China the end of all life or is it a mere inconvenience. Testing might tell us useful information. But, no. The incompetent big brains can't pull their heads out of their collective asses and actually accomplish what many other nations have managed.

But they tell us that eventually we'll have the bestest tests ever. Ever? When? Who knows? A week? A month? A year? A 100 years?

In the year 2120, the CDC finely comes out with the worlds perfect Wuhan-China Virus test. Unfortunately, by this point the US has been reduced to a pauper state and can only afford to produce a half dozen tests. The US thus requests emergency financial assistance from Haiti.

Meanwhile, back in 2020...
Americans have a greater chance of winning the lottery than getting a Wuhan-China virus test.
Americans have a greater chance of being killed by terrorists than getting a Wuhan-China virus test.
Americans have a greater chance of being abducted by anal-probing space aliens than getting a Wuhan-China virus test.

All those responsible for this fuck-up should be sent to Gitmo for the next 100 years. We'll let them out when the tests are ready.

Perhaps we could quiz the virus in the meantime?

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
^Because of the increased need of assistance to breathe. Compounded by the fact that citizens are not that healthy (co-mobidity can trump age). Imagine soar throat on friday, fever on Saturday, cough on Sunday, and pneumonia on Monday, and ventilator on Tuesday.
Herd immunity too risky without vaccines.

'Or', imagine sore throat on friday, fever on Saturday, cough on Sunday, feeling a bit better on Monday, feeling a bit better on Tuesday, back to work and normal life on Wednesday. My projection of outcome is every bit as likely as yours for a majority of the population.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
All those responsible for this fuck-up should be sent to Gitmo for the next 100 years. We'll let them out when the tests are ready.

You're far to kind. Air drop all of them from 20k feet into China....without any parachutes.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
All those responsible for this fuck-up should be sent to Gitmo for the next 100 years. We'll let them out when the tests are ready.

You're far to kind. Air drop all of them from 20k feet into China....without any parachutes.

Sir, you are far too cruel.

I am thoroughly disgusted with China, but not even they deserve to have these American bureaucratic asshats inflicted on them. Seriously, have not these poor Chinese suffered enough?

While I do not tend toward conspiracy theories, it is hard to imagine how the American response and testing could have been fucked up any more if it had been an act of deliberate treason.

In a bit of humorously positive news, the Mayor of Denver had to reverse an order to close the Recreational Weed Dispensaries and the Liquor Stores after a panicked rush by locals to each.

Denver Post link

“Gun stores across LA were swamped by large crowds stocking up on firearms and ammunition, afraid coronavirus will lead to mayhem.
……
Self-described 'prepper' Charles Dawson was the very first to arrive at 6.30am.

Equipped with a chair and a camouflage backpack stocked with cash, food and survival gear, the 51-year-old waited for three hours in the cold and wet outside the Martin B. Retting gun store in Culver City, Los Angeles.

When the doors finally swung open at 9.30am, the line behind him had swelled to 50 - everyone desperate to buy a gun.”

https://mol.im/a/8123285

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
Last weekend, I posted this research report on Italy's statistics. In the report, Table 1 contained a list of the other comorbidities which Google translated (it was in Italian) as:
* Cardiopatia ischemica (Ischemic heart disease) 33%
* Fibrillazione atriale (A-fib) 24.5%
* Ictus (stroke) 9.6%
* pertensione arteriosa (hypertension) 76.1%
* Diabete mellito (Diabetes) 35.5%
* Demenza (Dementia) 6.8%
* BPCO (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) 13.2%
* Cancro attivo negli ultimi 5 anni (Active cancer in the past 5 years) 20.3%
* Epatopatia cronica (Chronic hepatopathy) 3.1%
* Insufficienza renale cronica (Chronic renal failure) 18%

Three of those comorbidities (high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer) start becoming more and more common in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. In my county, here are the demographics:

5% teens

5% 20s

5% 30s

40% 40s

35% 50s

5% 60s

5% 90s

The hospitalized ones are 40s, 50s, and 90s.

In other words, lots of productive Americans who lead normal lives have high blood pressure (1/3 of all Americans) or diabetes (10.5% of all Americans).

First, Table 1 only applies to 355 of the 2003 people that died in the report and has nothing to do with those that were hospitalized. Of the 355, .8% had 0, 25.1% had 1, 25.6% had 2, and a whopping 48.5% had 3.

Second, of the 2003 that died in that study: 87.7% where 70 or older, 8.6% were 60-69, 2.7% were 50-59, and .8% were 30-49 years old.

Third, where did you get this from and hospitalized for what?:

"The hospitalized ones are 40s, 50s, and 90s."


Fourth, what conclusion are you trying to draw here?:

"In other words, lots of productive Americans who lead normal lives have high blood pressure (1/3 of all Americans) or diabetes (10.5% of all Americans)."

Based on the study you linked, the conclusion I draw is "lots of productive Americans who lead normal lives have high blood pressure (1/3 of all Americans) or diabetes (10.5% of all Americans)" won't die from COVID 19.

Fifth, if I'm reading your county information right, you are saying 40% of those in their 40s have diabetes, high blood pressure, or cancer. I find it interesting that there's a jump from 5% to 40% between 30s and 40s. Then a drop from 35% to 5% between 50s and 60s. So between 50s and 60s what happened? People got healthier? People moved? People dropped dead?