120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!
-
Does it matter?
-
@Jolly said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
Does it matter?
It sure does if we are to fine tune how we re-open. Today an article was published that 96% of Covid deaths in Italy were people with prior illness and mean age was over 80.
Surely an approach to protecting the vulnerable is better and more effective than applying the same standard of vigilance to hundreds of millions of people.
-
@Loki said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Jolly said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
Does it matter?
Surely an approach to protecting the vulnerable is better and more effective than applying the same standard of vigilance to hundreds of millions of people.
Only if you think hundreds of millions of people aren't worth protecting. Can we stop trying to say this is an old person's disease? Clearly it isn't.
-
The outcomes of Covid infection can be categorized by age. We don't need terms like "old person's disease", but it would be nice to let people judge their personal risk and the risk of others based on those numbers. IMO the reason we don't usually see numbers categorized by age is because those numbers don't play well to encourage the masses to go to great lengths to contain the disease. But I agree with Loki that they can be used to inform the details of our containment plans after we re-open.
-
@Horace said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
let people judge ... the risk of others
Our legal system doesn't work that way and for good reason.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Loki said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Jolly said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
Does it matter?
Surely an approach to protecting the vulnerable is better and more effective than applying the same standard of vigilance to hundreds of millions of people.
Only if you think hundreds of millions of people aren't worth protecting. Can we stop trying to say this is an old person's disease? Clearly it isn't.
Without sounding cold and callous the death rates per 100,000 for young people is about the same as suicide and opioid and we don’t shut down the country for that.
-
@Loki said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Aqua-Letifer said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Loki said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Jolly said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
Without sounding cold and callous the death rates per 100,000 for young people is about the same as suicide and opioid and we don’t shut down the country for that.
Okay so first, we don't make public health decisions based on whether or not a cherry-picked demographic makes a pandemic sound like not a big deal.
Second, let's revisit what exponential growth means, and how it makes COVID deaths something to worry about even if today's death numbers are small in your estimation.
Third, no one actually making those decisions is talking about "shutting down the country." Neither is anyone here.
It does no good to find data to support a belief that the economic damage will be much worse than the loss of life because you've decided that the virus is a silly boogeyman, and neither you nor anyone you deem important could ever die from it.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Loki said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Aqua-Letifer said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Loki said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
@Jolly said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
Without sounding cold and callous the death rates per 100,000 for young people is about the same as suicide and opioid and we don’t shut down the country for that.
Okay so first, we don't make public health decisions based on whether or not a cherry-picked demographic makes a pandemic sound like not a big deal.
Second, let's revisit what exponential growth means, and how it makes COVID deaths something to worry about even if today's death numbers are small in your estimation.
Third, no one actually making those decisions is talking about "shutting down the country." Neither is anyone here.
It does no good to find data to support a belief that the economic damage will be much worse than the loss of life because you've decided that the virus is a silly boogeyman, and neither you nor anyone you deem important could ever die from it.
I think the virus is very serious, but very serious to specific populations. The casualty rates are dramatically different amongst different populations. For example in NYC you are nearly 100 times less likely to die of Covid if you are under 44 than if you are over 75. With that knowledge it is time to make sure we figure out how to secure the vulnerable and let others have a meaningful life.
-
It's been 2-3 months of social distancing and suggested-but-not-mandatory PPE use in public. Try to hang tough.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in 120 cases and 15 deaths from a single case - in a hospital!:
It's been 2-3 months of social distancing and suggested-but-not-mandatory PPE use in public. Try to hang tough.
Pandemics usually last 12-36 months, that's a lot of hanging.
Of course I'm not sure the word usual makes sense in this context.
I think the suggested-but-not-mandatory routine will last as long as it offers some political advantage.
Hang tough.
