The % of peoples hospitalized that were under 65 was 55% of the total population in the last CDC report so it would seem HC resources still get taxed.

As to the death rate, while you're right that seniors would hopefully be very vigilant, many of them are still going to go out and about to get supplies or handle various business. I would expect their numbers to go down but couldn't really even guess by how much, especially if living in higher density living conditions like apartments or retirement communities

Edit, the CDC source I'm referencing which I believe is the most updated on the topic https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Just for the record, I think it's hilarious that people in here assune that if we did "nothing", the economy wouldn't get ****ed like it has. The truth is this **** is here. It has consequences. And we have to make the best decisions with the data we have. The data clearly suggests to everybody who is an expert on this kind of stuff that we need to take extreme measures. That's not just 1 expert, it's thousands of them.

---

Not one person denies that. But overreacting is causing the problem to growwait for it..exponentially!

---

How can you be so sure that we are overreacting? You don't use numbers, we've established that. So what evidence is there that anything that's been done is an overreaction. What evidence is what we have done worse, both from an economic or health outcome, than doing nothing? I've seen literally nothing but internet bravado, childish name-calling (e.g. "numbers guy"), ignorance to experts, and assurances that there are a million billion asymptomatic cases that would suggest you can back up that "nothing" leads to better outcomes. There's been plenty of evidence shown that doing nothing leads to terrible outcomes whether you choose to believe it or not.

---

You are asking me to defend something that has no data for support. I.e our reaction is saving X number of lives. I'm just saying that when one considers we are using data from China (communism controls information) that the outcomes must be flawed as well. Now, assume that data in other countries is at least slightly flawed( human nature, political bias, etc) the outcomes we generate can't be used with great confidence, especially because Chinese data is a large percentage of the data. So if we are talking fractions of a percentage (who knows), and apply that to a large population (us) the difference can be hundreds of thousands in terms of total deaths. We are acting on that Chinese data, which logically means our death number projections are inflated. So if 19 ends up being statistically no worse than h1n1, we have overreacted in comparison. The overreaction is going to cause severe economic damage and put many more lives at risk(suicides, loss of health insurance, food, loss of housing, etc).

But there is no way to accurately predict the effects of quarantining us will have on the outcomes.

k2aggie07 said:

---

It's a log scale. Straight line on log scale is exponential.

---

Don't confuse me.

A horizontal straight line on a log scale is not exponential.

Sure it is. Just has an exponent rate of 0.

A line with a slope greater than 0, then.

Something to consider and I'm stealing this from another post I read the other day:

Person A: Has pneumonia and covid and he dies
person B : Has Covid and recovers

How did person A die? What is the reporting policy of other nations in this regard? How is it notated in the data?

That's comorbidities. It differs by country. China would call it pneumonia (tho that's a tough example because what covid19 does is cause viral pneumonia). US would call it COVID19.

Quote:

---

But there is no way to accurately predict the effects of quarantining us will have on the outcomes.

---

No, there's not. The best evidence we have so far is that not quarantining on a massive scale leads to the issues we're seeing. Again though the entire argument for doing only at-risk quarantining hinges on what happens to our healthcare resources, and data so far suggests they would still be overly taxed.

But believe me when I say I see your point. It's been on my brain all weekend - what the ramifications to this economic collapse are vs. ramifications of trying at-risk quarantining. So far my conclusion is that, because it's all just a guessing game anyway, the question isn't an analytical one at all - it's a moral one. Do we do everything we can to save lives immediately, or do we prioritize the economy because we are of the belief that a healthier economy saves more lives in the long run? That seems to be the question.

is there evidence that simply going to a grocery store is enough to get you sick?

the casual attack rate has never been stated as being that high

I'm not trying to white pill here, and, clearly, assisted living arrangements are huge matzo balls. but this thing doesn't beat down your door and kill you in the living room. paranoia helps.

Philip J Fry said:

---

A line with a slope greater than 0, then.

---

Yep. Playing with you guys.

Fun thing about math is that is does not lie. Same answer all the time.

But then we have GIGO.

Troutslime said:

---

Something to consider and I'm stealing this from another post I read the other day:

Person A: Has pneumonia and covid and he dies
person B : Has Covid and recovers

How did person A die? What is the reporting policy of other nations in this regard? How is it notated in the data?

---

It's typically notated as a person with pre-existing conditions dying due to the virus, as the virus was the likely catalyst for accelerating the death.

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Something to consider and I'm stealing this from another post I read the other day:

Person A: Has pneumonia and covid and he dies
person B : Has Covid and recovers

How did person A die? What is the reporting policy of other nations in this regard? How is it notated in the data?

---

It's typically notated as a person with pre-existing conditions dying due to the virus, as the virus was the likely catalyst for accelerating the death.

---

But how do you know it's the cause?

nm.

Probably what Telco said.

Quote:

---

The best evidence we have so far is that not quarantining on a massive scale leads to the issues we're seeing.

---

Reconcile that statement with Italy.

When I see hospitalization rates of younger people stateside much higher than Asian countries that intuitively makes sense to me. Outside of work and your parents and large gatherings like church or sports, how many old folk do you get into close contact with?

Our society for good or ill does have more of a divide than Europe and Asia. And one of those cohorts is staying the **** home now. And one isn't as much. So it makes sense that one cohort is getting sicker when compared to Asia. Our younger cohort is being burned through faster.

Italy *is* the cautionary tale!

cone said:

---

is there evidence that simply going to a grocery store is enough to get you sick?

the casual attack rate has never been stated as being that high

I'm not trying to white pill here, and, clearly, assisted living arrangements are huge matzo balls. but this thing doesn't beat down your door and kill you in the living room. paranoia helps.

---

I don't believe there are, or really can be, any truly accurate data points on this. I have seen some WHO doctors interviewed who have essentially said that they believe transmission via interaction with objects is a very low %, but can't be totally sure with a new virus. The surface life study would indicate it's highly contagious through surface interaction, but again, I won't pretend to have even a good guess to give you as to how many were infected through that vector https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200320192755.htm

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

The best evidence we have so far is that not quarantining on a massive scale leads to the issues we're seeing.

---

Reconcile that statement with Italy.

---

Ok but have you seen New York?

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Something to consider and I'm stealing this from another post I read the other day:

Person A: Has pneumonia and covid and he dies
person B : Has Covid and recovers

How did person A die? What is the reporting policy of other nations in this regard? How is it notated in the data?

---

Covid could result in pneumonia. Attributed to Covid death but died from pneumonia.

---

Deaths aren't listed as such. I think if Clovid is there, it's noted as the cause and used in the reporting data. A politician needs these figures to provide future justification. And I've yet to see any data that notates this variable.

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

The best evidence we have so far is that not quarantining on a massive scale leads to the issues we're seeing.

---

Reconcile that statement with Italy.

---

Ok but have you seen New York?

---

Yes. Use that if you want.

Troutslime said:

---

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Something to consider and I'm stealing this from another post I read the other day:

Person A: Has pneumonia and covid and he dies
person B : Has Covid and recovers

How did person A die? What is the reporting policy of other nations in this regard? How is it notated in the data?

---

Covid could result in pneumonia. Attributed to Covid death but died from pneumonia.

---

Deaths aren't listed as such. I think if Clovid is there, it's noted as the cause and used in the reporting data. A politician needs these figures to provide future justification. And I've yet to see any data that notates this variable.

---

I pulled that post because I can only speculate.

Troutslime said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Something to consider and I'm stealing this from another post I read the other day:

Person A: Has pneumonia and covid and he dies
person B : Has Covid and recovers

How did person A die? What is the reporting policy of other nations in this regard? How is it notated in the data?

---

It's typically notated as a person with pre-existing conditions dying due to the virus, as the virus was the likely catalyst for accelerating the death.

---

But how do you know it's the cause?

---

What do you mean? Like, was there a picture of the virus with a bloody knife in it's hands? That's not how this works. If you are hospitalized with anything where there is no other outside factor such as a gunshot wound to the head or blunt force trauma, and you have the virus and then die, there will be a +1 in the virus's death count.

Edit - off the PC for a bit. back in a few hours

I've been dying to get into that business.

Troutslime said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

The best evidence we have so far is that not quarantining on a massive scale leads to the issues we're seeing.

---

Reconcile that statement with Italy.

---

Ok but have you seen New York?

---

Yes. Use that if you want.

---

Italy started shutting cities down and bent the curve. What am I reconciling?

cone said:

---

is there evidence that simply going to a grocery store is enough to get you sick?

the casual attack rate has never been stated as being that high

I'm not trying to white pill here, and, clearly, assisted living arrangements are huge matzo balls. but this thing doesn't beat down your door and kill you in the living room. paranoia helps.

---

I think you'll agree, but if our leaders believed it was going to get as bad as the worst predictions, then what's being done is a fart in the wind.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

The best evidence we have so far is that not quarantining on a massive scale leads to the issues we're seeing.

---

Reconcile that statement with Italy.

---

Ok but have you seen New York?

---

Yes. Use that if you want.

---

Italy started shutting cities down and bent the curve. What am I reconciling?

---

High infection and death rates.

They did not quarantine themselves. Had high infection and death rates. Started quarantining and bent the curve over.

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Just for the record, I think it's hilarious that people in here assune that if we did "nothing", the economy wouldn't get ****ed like it has. The truth is this **** is here. It has consequences. And we have to make the best decisions with the data we have. The data clearly suggests to everybody who is an expert on this kind of stuff that we need to take extreme measures. That's not just 1 expert, it's thousands of them.

---

Not one person denies that. But overreacting is causing the problem to growwait for it..exponentially!

---

How can you be so sure that we are overreacting? You don't use numbers, we've established that. So what evidence is there that anything that's been done is an overreaction. What evidence is what we have done worse, both from an economic or health outcome, than doing nothing? I've seen literally nothing but internet bravado, childish name-calling (e.g. "numbers guy"), ignorance to experts, and assurances that there are a million billion asymptomatic cases that would suggest you can back up that "nothing" leads to better outcomes. There's been plenty of evidence shown that doing nothing leads to terrible outcomes whether you choose to believe it or not.

---

You are asking me to defend something that has no data for support. I.e our reaction is saving X number of lives. I'm just saying that when one considers we are using data from China (communism controls information) that the outcomes must be flawed as well. Now, assume that data in other countries is at least slightly flawed( human nature, political bias, etc) the outcomes we generate can't be used with great confidence, especially because Chinese data is a large percentage of the data. So if we are talking fractions of a percentage (who knows), and apply that to a large population (us) the difference can be hundreds of thousands in terms of total deaths. We are acting on that Chinese data, which logically means our death number projections are inflated. So if 19 ends up being statistically no worse than h1n1, we have overreacted in comparison. The overreaction is going to cause severe economic damage and put many more lives at risk(suicides, loss of health insurance, food, loss of housing, etc).

But there is no way to accurately predict the effects of quarantining us will have on the outcomes.

---

We have data from South Korea, Europe, and now thousands of cases in the US. You can throw out the China data, we have more to go on now. Italy and NY have certainly been worse case, S. Korea has been best case. South Korea also has the highest testing volumes per capita in the world. They have roughly 10,000 cases and 100 deaths. So a death rate of 1% of detected cases. We don't know the actual number infected in S. Korea, but they should have the closest estimate. They also have a very low infection rate per capita, so the lessons learned that are being modeled here are largely based on South Korea to try and flatten and the curve. And people are looking at Italy as a kind worse case scenario if you don't do enough.

Philip J Fry said:

---

They did not quarantine themselves. Had high infection and death rates. Started quarantining and bent the curve over.

---

Correlation is not causation.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Already 14k new US cases since yesterday and by the end of the day we'll have more or less doubled in 24 hours (24k to 45-48k estimate).

Worldwide we'll surpass 500k by tomorrow morning and hit a million sometime early Wednesday. We're still at least a week away from curbing the exconential growth internationally if our current measures work and it's essentially a mathematical and medical certainty we'll hit 10 million cases world wide by the start of next week.

A lot of people are about to get a very disturbing math lesson.

---

They're already learning a very valuable economics lesson in supply/demand on gun sales...

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Something to consider and I'm stealing this from another post I read the other day:

Person A: Has pneumonia and covid and he dies
person B : Has Covid and recovers

How did person A die? What is the reporting policy of other nations in this regard? How is it notated in the data?

---

It's typically notated as a person with pre-existing conditions dying due to the virus, as the virus was the likely catalyst for accelerating the death.

---

But how do you know it's the cause?

---

What do you mean? Like, was there a picture of the virus with a bloody knife in it's hands? That's not how this works. If you are hospitalized with anything where there is no other outside factor such as a gunshot wound to the head or blunt force trauma, and you have the virus and then die, there will be a +1 in the virus's death count.

Edit - off the PC for a bit. back in a few hours

---

You're stating the obvious. If a person has multiple illnesses and goes to the hospital, and once there gets a positive test for COVID and then dies. Is that reported as a COVID death and if so, how? Does it have an asterisk? Do other countries report deaths by age? It seems we are only factoring total deaths, when obviously that can be skewed.

Troutslime said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

They did not quarantine themselves. Had high infection and death rates. Started quarantining and bent the curve over.

---

Correlation is not causation.

---

It's too bad there's never been one or even hundreds of scientific studies performed that show where that correlation is causation on this matter.

Are you not aware that COVID 19 causes pneumonia? If you have pneumonia and COVID-19, you fricken died because the virus caused irreparable damage to your lungs.