601–610 of 649 posts
This is actually not such a bad thing. It means that the true case rate is much much higher, and thus the true fatality rate is much much lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortunately those conditions are preventable in the majority of cases.
You are correct, it is possible to prevent some of those conditions in some (but not all) future cases. Kinda sucks if you have any of those conditions right now though.
You chose to eat X and not exercise for years/decades. A middle class American has enough education and purchasing power to know and behave accordingly.
Does it suck? Yes, but i find it incredibly unfair and hypocritical towards the rest of the world by ruining their lives based on the extremely old and or fat/unhealthy population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On 1), what do you consider "not that serious"? IE, what are your metrics of choice, and what are the acceptable values? Regarding the cost-benefit discussion, my perspective is that people only want to discuss the downsides from a reduced economy. Second order effects include reduced vehicle deaths, reduced deaths from pollution, etc. IE, my discussions has felt agenda driven because it considers first order effects…
We are quite a lot of people that fear the operation will be successful but the patient is dead with the Corona actions being taken. Case in point, 26.5 million americans have sought unemployment benefits ( https://vastuullisuusuutiset.fi/en/weben/women-bear-brunt-of... ). The deaths in New York are quite telling for who is at risk, see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-deat... . Over 90% of the…
What's your definition of "old"?
I looked at your statista.com link and about 2/3 of deaths in NY are from people aged 75 and up. That leaves a non-trivial number of deaths for "middle-aged" people (and maybe younger).
Also, I don't know many middle-agers without some co-morbid condition, so I'm not sure we can just ascribe the deaths exclusively to "old sick people" because an enormous portion of the US population is "sick" with a morbid condition.
That being said, I will admit that there are many conflicting pieces of data flying about.
Are the PCR and antibody tests reliable enough to base our lock-down decisions?
Do we already have "herd immunity" and we're just too stupid/reluctant/lack-the-testing-capacity to realize it?
It would be "nice" to have an AMA from an epidemiologist with expertise in this area to cut through the noise.
Reporting on 96% without symptoms is misleading without mentioning this: It gives the impression that the # of coronavirus infections could be up to 24x higher than the known positives cases. But symptoms can take 2-14 days to develop, meaning it is entirely too soon to tell if these are all asymptomatic cases, or merely pre-symptomatic.
[0] https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200410/coronavirus-in-marion...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that. depending on the air conditioning system, it might be quite a bit worse. The density of people is huge, air flows freely between cells, prisoners eat packed together at communal tables. I bet R is like 10-20.
I'd have thought that more airflow would help to reduce transmission, given that like other coronaviruses it's transmitted by droplets and not aerosol. Droplets would have trouble staying suspended with more air movement, and would be unlikely to make it through centralised air conditioning systems without becoming deposited on some surface within them. The eating together at communal tables, and any other close-quar…
As such, while the small particles may not exists in sufficient quantities when it is just one infected, or a few infected inmates, but with each infected inmate the concentrations of those small particles will increase. Let's say they're normally 0.5% of the total particle exhalations: 10 inmates get sick through direct contact, and their combined exhalations bring the quantity of smaller, longer lived particles up to an equivalent of 5%. More get sick through contact, bringing it to 20%. At some point, you hit a critical mass where there is a sufficient concentration to infect people, and creates a downward spiral from there.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-six-fe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that needs to be weighed against destroying all of our economic institutions. No it doesn't. Like the statement alone doesn't even have any credence, let alone following through with it. Incredibly daft.
Economic institutions sustain people's lives. Declining productivity translates to loss in life expectancy.
You know what can disappear, become depleted, or stretched to thin? Trained medical personal. And money flow can't replenish that resource.
Droplets exist in a continuum, not a binary of big == fall to ground, small == stay in the air. There's a range, and as they get smaller they stay in the air longer.
Large droplets (>50 μm in diameter) settle on the ground almost immediately, and intermediate-sized droplets (10–50 μm) settle within several minutes. Small particles ( [0]
As such, while particles that stay aloft longer may not exists in sufficient quantities when it is just one infected, or a few infected inmates, that changes with the # of infected. With each infected inmate the concentrations of those small particles will increase.
Let's say that normally the small particles exist at 3% the necessary quantity to infect another person. Then 33 inmates and staff get sick through close contact, and all of a sudden the concentrations of small droplets is sufficient to infect people. You hit a critical mass, and each additional infection only makes it worse, creating a rapid downward spiral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are quite a lot of people that fear the operation will be successful but the patient is dead with the Corona actions being taken. Case in point, 26.5 million americans have sought unemployment benefits ( https://vastuullisuusuutiset.fi/en/weben/women-bear-brunt-of... ). The deaths in New York are quite telling for who is at risk, see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-deat... . Over 90% of the…
> Over 90% of the dead so far are old with comorbidites such as Hypertension and Diabetes What's your definition of "old"? I looked at your statista.com link and about 2/3 of deaths in NY are from people aged 75 and up. That leaves a non-trivial number of deaths for "middle-aged" people (and maybe younger). Also, I don't know many middle-agers without some co-morbid condition, so I'm not sure we can just ascribe the…
Coronary Heart Disease, Lung cancer and Hypertension can all be mitigated by a healthy life and the numbers seem to suggest that Corona has made these illnesses even more serious than before.
An AMA would be great and i can certainly see that being middle-aged with a co-morbid condition has gotten a lot more serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be willing to bet that if you combine all the different lists that New York State and its various agencies have (DMV, DOE, Department of Taxation and Finance, NYC ID, jury duty, voter registration, social services, etc.), that you would easily get >99% coverage of all people who've resided here for at least one year. This would be a much better list to sample randomly from than "go to a grocery store and test…
Now you're talking about a huge legal issue just to get access to the data, followed by a huge record linkage issue to remove duplicates. So with the time pressure involved, your proposal is so completely impractical as to be ridiculous.
What huge legal issues? This is all the government. Of course it has lists of all of its citizens, and can and does use said lists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The spike receding is due to incomplete data rather than a reduction in deaths. Deaths (especially in the current circumstances) can take a couple of weeks to get registered properly.
also need to take into account the decline in deaths from other factors due to quarantines, social distancing, and improved hygiene. less driving, less spread of other infectious diseases, etc.