BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.

---

Let's see it for under 50. 50 really seems to be the demarcation line.

---

i can't do under 50 because the CDC has COVID broken down into 10 year age brackets but here is under 55 and under 45



so as you lower the age it does drop, but still would qualify as a ranked cause of death against annual totals of other causes. for a fun look, here is the rankings if you took the other cause of death annual averages and projected them over the same 77 days that COVID has been killing

---

Thank you taking the time to find that information.

So around 1K nationwide deaths over the year for those under 45 including those with preexisting conditions? Yeah, open it all up.

Swagag8 said:

---

Why does no one bat an eye when the flu claims a lot kids every year under 10 and this has killed less than you can count on your hands? Stop having tunnel vision!

---

Actually, that number is generally less than a few hundred at most out of millions of cases. Can we stop with the flu comparisons already?

It's not that there the same but the flu disproportionately kills more youth than this virus! But why don't we care? That's my question? This virus mainly attacks the old and people with health problems.

The graphs just posted literally show more deaths from flu/pneumonia than covid for people under 55

He actually said kids, but again that's out of millions of cases. Trying to equate the two is silly.

Swagag8 said:

---

It's not that there the same but the flu disproportionately kills more youth than this virus! But why don't we care? That's my question? This virus mainly attacks the old and people with health problems.

---

We do care. And we have a vaccine for the flu that prevents a whole lot of those deaths that could happen otherwise.

What do you think would be on the news if hundreds of infants and children were dying of this virus?

And judging by the antibody testing, we are well into the millions in infections

GAC06 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.

---

Let's see it for under 50. 50 really seems to be the demarcation line.

---

i can't do under 50 because the CDC has COVID broken down into 10 year age brackets but here is under 55 and under 45



so as you lower the age it does drop, but still would qualify as a ranked cause of death against annual totals of other causes. for a fun look, here is the rankings if you took the other cause of death annual averages and projected them over the same 77 days that COVID has been killing

---

So for young people, it's similar to flu deaths, which are already largely confined to a specific season.

---

for the 2018-2019 flu season, during the worst 11 week period flu killed roughly 790 people ages 1-44. so if you consider the first 11 weeks of covid being double the severity of the worst 11 weeks of flu, then yes, it is similar...

GAC06 said:

---

What do you think would be on the news if hundreds of infants and children were dying of this virus?

And judging by the antibody testing, we are well into the millions in infections

---

I'm sure it would be an even bigger deal. Why is that relevant?

EDIT to include your added comment. I think the biggest issue we have by far with all this is the lack of data, we're operating with best guesses which are often wrong. We can't at this point draw reasonable conclusions from how the numbers have changed due to stay at home orders, and the actual number of cases is still totally up in the air.

That being said, there's no way we've got anywhere near the number of total cases as the flu which generally range from 30 to 80 million cases per year.

Now compare to a bad flu year. Did we annihilate our economy and force ridiculous restrictions on everyone?

You do realize that this is happening in addition to the flu, not on place of.

And?

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.

---

How many people represented on the COVID bar were likely to be represented on another bar in the near future?

---

that is a question that is literally impossible to answer right now without the ability to predict the future. you may be able to get a sense for this in the future by doing a detailed look at death rates for various causes over the next few years in areas that were hit hard by COVID. But best case scenario we are several years from having a clue about being able to answer this question.

---

This was link was posted in a different thread, but there is a lot of information in here.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinmarch2020#analysis-of-deaths-involving-covid-19-data

The UK saw a large drop off in the number of deaths due to Ischaemic heart disease in March compared to their 5 year average as well as smaller drops in deaths due to Cerebrovascular disease and chronic lower respiratory disease. While you're right, we can't be sure of the cause of the declines right now; it is reasonable to assume the decreases were due to people dying of coronavirus instead of other natural causes that would've likely killed them in the near future.

Swagag8 said:

---

Why does no one bat an eye when the flu claims a lot kids every year under 10 and this has killed less than you can count on your hands? Stop having tunnel vision!

---

You can count 40,000 on one hand?

GAC06 said:

---

Now compare to a bad flu year. Did we annihilate our economy and force ridiculous restrictions on everyone?

---

I feel like you're operating from the position of "everyone who thinks this might be bad thinks it's ok to destroy the economy" which is pretty disingenuous.

It's very possible to think we needed at least some stay home/shelter in place order and also think this is a really bad situation for the economy. It's not black and white and there aren't simple solutions.

GAC06 said:

---

Now compare to a bad flu year. Did we annihilate our economy and force ridiculous restrictions on everyone?

---

Name a bad flu year when hospitals were slammed and there was a shortage of available ventilators.

This isn't about deaths at all. It's about not overloading the hospital system.

We do nothing and hospitals are slammed with Covid cases and you get in a car wreck, guess what happens. It's a societal problem. It affects everyone. Get your head out of the sand.

This is the problem with this board. OP has already made his agenda clear in previous posts and is posting to stir up debate and now this thread has derailed into another political cluster f.

fig96 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Now compare to a bad flu year. Did we annihilate our economy and force ridiculous restrictions on everyone?

---

I feel like you're operating from the position of "everyone who thinks this might be bad thinks it's ok to destroy the economy" which is pretty disingenuous.

It's very possible to think we needed at least some stay home/shelter in place order and also think this is a really bad situation for the economy. It's not black and white and there aren't simple solutions.

---

I agree. This is much worse than the flu. I think taking the steps we did was at least somewhat reasonable. But now that we flattened the curve, and it's becoming clear that for the vast majority of the country overrunning hospital capacity was never a realistic threat, it's time to end the insanity.

You're fear mongering again. When did 40,000 people under 10 die from this virus? Because that's what my comment stated. The flu definitely and will continue to kill those under 10 at a higher rate. And these are people with long lives to live.

Dr.HeadCase said:

---

This is the problem with this board. OP has already made his agenda clear in previous posts and is posting to stir up debate and now this thread has derailed into another political cluster f.

---

Sorry opposing viewpoints are ruining your apocalypse fantasy.

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

For non-obese, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic, etc. people <65, which is a minority of adults >30 in America.

And even then, a small percentage of truly healthy young people do get very sick or die. Additionally, death isn't the only negative long term sequelae of this. Nobody is talking about the good number of patients who recover but have significant residual kidney, lung or cardiac damage.

GAC06 said:

---

Now compare to a bad flu year. Did we annihilate our economy and force ridiculous restrictions on everyone?

---

Annihilate? The economy still exists, although probably a ~35% GDP hit this quarter. Predicted to recover in third and fourth quarter with overall annual GDP hit of ~-5%. But predicting this seems as reliable as predicting a new pandemic - could be much worse, much better - we will see. Not annihilated.

Worst flu year in last 10 years was estimated at 61K deaths, approaching that mark with Covid after 2 months, not the 5 for flu, and that is with lockdowns and probably 15% or less of people having been exposed so far. This will kill quite a few more people than the flu, even with the lockdowns. The flu is bad, thats why there are vaccines and the deaths are tracked annually, and this is additive, as bad or worse, and wasn't easy to predict two months ago with little trustworthy worldwide data. A decision a month or more ago was on different data than today, which I think is why Europe and Texas/America is starting to ease up on some restrictions now.

As established on this thread, it is older people or people with some other health condition who mostly die. Data also updated here (but it lags) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm . That included Covid deaths, deaths for all causes, pneumonia deaths, influenza deaths. Interesting data.

There hasn't been anything this contagious and deadly in quite some time, even if it is proven to be "on the order of" a bad influenza year, and early on extreme actions were carried out in countries around the world - not unique to America. Only hindsight will tell us if was generally right or wrong as far as how it was handled, and it will help us in the next event.

deadbq03 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

For non-obese, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic, etc. people <65, which is a minority of adults >30 in America.

---

Lifestyle choices man. Those people don't deserve to live either.

---

Whether facetious or serious, this type of post doesn't belong on this board IMO.

deadbq03 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

For non-obese, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic, etc. people <65, which is a minority of adults >30 in America.

---

Lifestyle choices man. Those people don't deserve to live either.

---

Alright, time to sign off Texags.

GAC06 said:

---

Now compare to a bad flu year. Did we annihilate our economy and force ridiculous restrictions on everyone?

---

under 45 years old only, compared to the worst flu year of the previous decade based on total death count.

bay fan said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

I'll be sure to tell that to my friend whose healthy, marathon running, 29 year old nurse daughter died of it. I am sure she will feel better knowing it's just bad luck.

---

An anecdotal, anomalous data point is always a tragedy to someone.

While I disagree that the disease is "relatively harmless" to healthy people under 65, because a hospital stay of some length is still serious, it is accurate to say that the risk of fatality to healthy people under 65 is very small. Anything more than 0% is going to result in deaths that hit hard on someone, but that doesn't change the reality that the risk of death to that segment of the population is still very small.

You had a lot of people "agree" with your post, probably because of the useless knee jerk that people in one camp have against people they think are in the other camp, but I found the tone of your response to be unnecessarily combative to what was a pretty factual assertion without any editorializing about Meemaw or whatever.

deadbq03 said:

---

So do nothing and lots of old sick people die.

Small price to pay. I'm sure most of them would gladly give their lives for the sake of our economy.

---

No one is saying do nothing. Those at risk should take whatever action they deem necessary. Don't impose ridiculous restrictions on the rest of us.

HotardAg07 said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

For non-obese, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic, etc. people <65, which is a minority of adults >30 in America.

---

Lifestyle choices man. Those people don't deserve to live either.

---

Alright, time to sign off Texags.

---

I guess my sarcasm wasn't obvious. Which is a sad sign.

That's really what this whole thread is about though.

Even if it were true that this only kills the old and unhealthy, the implication in even bringing it up is that their lives aren't worth saving.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

For non-obese, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic, etc. people <65, which is a minority of adults >30 in America.

And even then, a small percentage of truly healthy young people do get very sick or die. Additionally, death is the only negative long term sequelae of this. Nobody is talking about the good number of patients who recover but have significant residual kidney, lung or cardiac damage.

---

I posted this elsewhere but hypertension is possibly over-diagnosed:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6030030/. And obesity is a BMI of 30 or greater. There is a large difference in health outcomes from having a BMI of 30 versus BMI of 35. A 5'10" guys that weighs 210 is "obese."


Are we country of sick, unhealthy people or over-diagnosed people?

deadbq03 said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

For non-obese, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic, etc. people <65, which is a minority of adults >30 in America.

---

Lifestyle choices man. Those people don't deserve to live either.

---

Alright, time to sign off Texags.

---

I guess my sarcasm wasn't obvious. Which is a sad sign.

That's really what this whole thread is about though.

Even if it were true that this only kills the old and unhealthy, the implication in even bringing it up is that their lives aren't worth saving.

---

Not even close. There's no implication, just the fact that it's not a realistic threat for the vast majority of us, and we are overreacting.

GAC06 said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

So do nothing and lots of old sick people die.

Small price to pay. I'm sure most of them would gladly give their lives for the sake of our economy.

---

No one is saying do nothing. Those at risk should take whatever action they deem necessary. Don't impose ridiculous restrictions on the rest of us.

---

Most people think they're healthier than they really are. My boss is dang near 70 and wasn't worried about this for months. Im not sure she's worried about it now. She works out every day so she's immune.

People like her would clog the hospitals and then when the rest of us need an ICU for our daily lives we wouldn't have it.

Hospitals are empty in Texas. Wake up.

Swagag8 said:

---

You're fear mongering again. When did 40,000 people under 10 die from this virus? Because that's what my comment stated. The flu definitely and will continue to kill those under 10 at a higher rate. And these are people with long lives to live.

---

While I get that you're trying to make a point, we were looking at a record high number of child flu deaths this past season and that number was under 200. The flu has never caused large numbers of death in children.

In 2018-2019 we had approximately 32,000 deaths from flu or flu related symptoms from an estimated 32 million cases.

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

For non-obese, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic, etc. people <65, which is a minority of adults >30 in America.

And even then, a small percentage of truly healthy young people do get very sick or die. Additionally, death is the only negative long term sequelae of this. Nobody is talking about the good number of patients who recover but have significant residual kidney, lung or cardiac damage.

---

I posted this elsewhere but hypertension is possibly over-diagnosed:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6030030/. And obesity is a BMI of 30 or greater. There is a large difference in health outcomes from having a BMI of 30 versus BMI of 35. A 5'10" guys that weighs 210 is "obese."


Are we country of sick, unhealthy people or over-diagnosed people?

---

It is moot unless you believe the over diagnosing applies to the general population, but not the covid statistics.

GAC06 said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.

---

For non-obese, non-hypertensive, non-diabetic, etc. people <65, which is a minority of adults >30 in America.

---

Lifestyle choices man. Those people don't deserve to live either.

---

Alright, time to sign off Texags.

---

I guess my sarcasm wasn't obvious. Which is a sad sign.

That's really what this whole thread is about though.

Even if it were true that this only kills the old and unhealthy, the implication in even bringing it up is that their lives aren't worth saving.

---

Not even close. There's no implication, just the fact that it's not a realistic threat for the vast majority of us, and we are overreacting.

---

I disagree. We all make too many contacts in our lives. My wife has an auto-immune disease. She's at risk. Do we get special notes to keep our kids out of school while everyone else goes? My 5 and 7 year olds sure as hell won't be abiding by protocols if they have to go to school.

One small example. Nearly everyone in the at-risk population would have similar issues trying to keep themselves safe if society didn't do this together.