The necessity of lockdowns during the pandemic

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

I never said anything of the sort.

  

On 3/24/2020 at 8:56 AM, Redhead14 said:

You are advocating keeping the older and high risk people imprisoned for an indefinite period of time while everyone else walks around possibly, even likely, carrying this virus.  And every time we do try to go out, we need to restart the incubation period clock and watch to see if we will get sick and die alone.  So, yeah, if this is the tactic that ends up being taken, you are complicit ....

 

Weird. I guess the forum DB is lying. 

 

In any case, everyone is not out to get anyone, the fact of this plague isn't personal, it's just a thing that nature possibly abetted by some sloppy virus research has sprung on humanity. We will need to adapt. We will also need to still farm and produce the things we need (or want even) to sustain a reasonable way of life. Those are factual realities and are not attacks on any demographic. 

 

[Minneloa]

1 minute ago, Redhead14 said:

It is not the act of lifting restrictions.   It's about the comments and attitudes of some that say that we need to just get over it and accept our fate.  There is no respect, concern, empathy, etc. 

Who is saying this? Here on the forum? Elsewhere?

I certainly agree that it would be callous to tell someone to “get over it,” but I have not encountered this attitude. 

[Redhead14]

Just now, preraph said:

Seems like common sense to me.  The less careful all the infectious people are, the more infectious people there will be and it's on surfaces everywhere and there will be no safe place for the vulnerable.  Thing is people who feel they're healthy aren't any more afraid of it than a cold, but it will kill a large number of older people.  

Exactly, the more people who allow themselves to be hosts for a longer period of time, the less likely we can have some "relief" in terms of the virus circulating.  Yeah, it might still be around, but the chances of contracting it would be reduced because there are fewer "vehicles"/opportunities for delivering it.  It would give the vulnerable a little more of a chance.

By the way, all the way up until Friday, my rural area only had 33 cases and 3 deaths.  We are now up to 90 and 5 deaths.  I suspect there were some people who decided to abandon their masks or ignore the rules.  Thanks, you guys.

[Redhead14]

1 minute ago, Minneloa said:

Who is saying this? Here on the forum? Elsewhere?

I certainly agree that it would be callous to tell someone to “get over it,” but I have not encountered this attitude. 

That attitude has been conveyed numerous times . . .

[Redhead14]

4 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

  

 

Weird. I guess the forum DB is lying. 

 

In any case, everyone is not out to get anyone, the fact of this plague isn't personal, it's just a thing that nature possibly abetted by some sloppy virus research has sprung on humanity. We will need to adapt. We will also need to still farm and produce the things we need (or want even) to sustain a reasonable way of life. Those are factual realities and are not attacks on any demographic. 

 

I stand by that.  It still had nothing to do with you and was in response to someone elses callousness.

[Minneloa]

8 minutes ago, preraph said:

Seems like common sense to me.  The less careful all the infectious people are, the more infectious people there will be and it's on surfaces everywhere and there will be no safe place for the vulnerable.  Thing is people who feel they're healthy aren't any more afraid of it than a cold, but it will kill a large number of older people.  

I agree that lifting lockdowns will endanger the vulnerable, which is a horrible prospect. I would also sympathize with higher-risk individuals’ frustration and anger over a prolonged need to protect themselves by self-isolating. But what is the reasonable alternative?

[Minneloa]

6 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

That attitude has been conveyed numerous times . . .

Do you have an example? I am genuinely asking, not trying to be snarky.

[thefooloftheyear]

It's not being discussed much because everyone is so sensitive about it, but the reality is that a large chunk of the people in the USA(yes even younger one's) are in horrible shape...Even if they aren't fat, they are so aerobically challenged that one flight of stairs has them hyperventilating....There are many ways to remedy this and yes, there are people with pre-existing conditions that don't just accept their fate, they put their own health in their own hands... Whenever they show a photo on the local TV of someone who died, the overwhelming percentage are obviously overweight...Sad either way, and I feel for them and their family, but it should be sending a message,...

I saw a newscast that showed a line of people waiting to get into the supermarket...This was in Texas, but really could be anywhere in the States...Holy cap....Like 8/10 of the people in that line couldn't run across the street without collapsing in a heap......

It's not about shaming anyone, but I agree with the others that if I had a risk condition, I would start by actively doing something about it....Its just common sense...The best defense for this(and any health ailment) is taking care of yourself and being as fit as you can be....

TFY

[elaine567]

Regarding obesity.

Quote

Fat people are less likely to survive the coronavirus than thinner folk, a study led by the University of Edinburgh has found. 
Scientists analysed data relating to 17,000 Covid-19 cases in the UK and found that obesity increases the risk of death.
It's thought that "reduced lung function and inflamed tissue under the skin and around internal organs" means fatter people face a higher chance of being killed by the coronavirus. 
These factors can trigger a life-threatening over-reaction of the body’s immune response, the study suggested.
Fat men are particularly at risk because males are known to be more likely to suffer a serious case of Covid-19. 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by elaine567

[preraph]

I think they're going to have to start making everyone from manufacturing and food packing forward cheap products and especially the packaging sanitized because that is a huge job have to sanitize things that really can't be sanitized because they're porous. So I think some of the packing and all that needs to change to more easily controlled packaging materials. Plastic holds germs longer than anything so I think we need to start finding alternatives. 

 

I've been doing a lot of grocery pick-up and delivery and instead of using less packaging which would make it a lot simpler to sanitize everything, they are using more and putting everything in a bag in a bag and tying the top of the bag and everything else that makes it difficult to get to the actual food. I would think a grocery store manager to have better sense. 

[Belle23]

3 hours ago, Redhead14 said:

Yet another poster who is entirely cavalier about the lives of high-risk/older people and the restricted living we will be forced to endure for way beyond the time when things are "relaxed" and suggesting that we and our lives are disposable.  We will be sacrificing a significant piece of our chronological real estate and ability to spend time with our family and friends,and perform usual routines, etc.

You should probably know that I’m disabled. I’m high risk, too. I can barely cough because my diaphragm is partially paralyzed. I don’t think I’m disposable or anyone else who is high risk. I’m just trying to be realistic about the restrictions and inevitable reopening. 

[SincereOnlineGuy]

On 4/12/2020 at 5:43 AM, chillii said:

 

Was watching a special tonight and a virus expert professor was saying lock downs aren't really necessary and are just going to ruin economies for nothing . He said despite all the horror stories of covid droplets traveling god knows how far , the only realistic way you catch this thing is standing too close to someone that has it and them sneezing or coughing or by touching surfaces they've sneezed or coughed onto or touched with their hands afterward but even at that washing your hands thoroughly after you've been out anywhere and staying 1.5mtrs back from people is all we really need to do.

ln his opinion the lock downs will also cause more health and mental problems than the virus will in the long run with people and families being cooped up all together for long periods and we'd all be far better off continuing on with our lives and work and getting outside especially in sunshine which he says usually kills a virus anyway , but just keeping distance from other people and keeping numbers down.

Just thought it was very interesting and to me somewhat more realistic .

Of course that is pure idiocy at its finest.

 

Even with the lockdown, the U.S. is on approach of Italy's staggering cases-per-capita record which was attained at shocking speed and at great human expense.

 

And when in the long run  the lockdown causes those more health problems, there will be health facilities available to address those concerns.

 

As of late April of 2020 there are numerous people around the U.S. who have avoided dialing 9-1-1 during heart attacks for fear of catching the virus !!

 

It is precisely the American way of getting up and criss-crossing the globe that is the root cause of America's high ranking in the Covid standings.

 

It's not that we're less clean, or less sanitary than is Zimbabwe or Uganda.  It's that Americans can afford to get up and interact with one another across a much more vast realm, that spreads the virus like wildfire.

 

The only sensible comparison to make at this point is where the USA is at present to where it would be (Covid cases-wise) had no lockdown or slowdown taken place.

(and exactly no one has that data) (but even with the lockdown, like I just stated, we've nearly caught Italy's staggering per capita numbers )

[lana-banana]

Let's not forget that we've hit 60,000 deaths in about eight weeks---a number we were expected to hit in August. Our current confirmed mortality rate is around 5.6%, which is astronomical.

The idea that "only" the elderly and the immunocompromised need to worry is flat-out wrong. For one thing, lots of people at high risk don't even know they're high risk (think about heart defects, which are rarely diagnosed). For another thing, the virus has a wild host of side effects for completely healthy people 30 and up, including strokes, comas, and permanent (!) lung damage. While younger people are less likely to suffer effects, they're also more likely to be asymptomatic, which means they think they're fine even as they spread it everywhere. 

Until we have highly sophisticated contact tracing and regular testing lockdowns are necessary. There's no way around it. Our dear leader has said we're close to doing 5 million tests a day. This is absolutely false: the real number is closer to 200,000. All these states "reopening" are about to learn a very hard lesson.

[sothereiwas]

10 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

Our current confirmed mortality rate is around 5.6%, which is astronomical.

Also highly unlikely to be a true figure. Recent antibody testing in NY indicates that 2.7 million people across the state have probably had COVID-19 as of a few weeks ago. This is why Gov. Cuomo recently stated that the actual fatality rate in NY is probably below 0.5%, and a similar study in SoCal came up with a fatality rate of around 0.15%, so ...

[elaine567]

29 minutes ago, SincereOnlineGuy said:

 It is precisely the American way of getting up and criss-crossing the globe that is the root cause of America's high ranking in the Covid standings

Same with the UK.
London is an international hub, people coming and going all the time.
They still haven't shut it down.
At least 15000 people a day come into the UK... no testing, no tracing, no tracking...

[lana-banana]

15 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Also highly unlikely to be a true figure. Recent antibody testing in NY indicates that 2.7 million people across the state have probably had COVID-19 as of a few weeks ago. This is why Gov. Cuomo recently stated that the actual fatality rate in NY is probably below 0.5%, and a similar study in SoCal came up with a fatality rate of around 0.15%, so ...

It's hard to tell because we've also seen a dramatic increase in deaths at home. I doubt the "true" mortality rate is lower than 1.4% and is probably around 3%. It certainly won't be lower than South Korea's ~1%, given how much better their health care is than ours. A lot of it is due to America's horrendous health care system. 

The study out of southern California has already been vigorously condemned from all sides, so I wouldn't cite that as any kind of authority.

[amaysngrace]

Asymptomatic people with covid aren’t being tested.  The more tests the lower the mortality rate.  

But if we just count the population from the ones who have been tested as a reference then yes, the mortality rate is below 1%.

[sothereiwas]

Quote

A German antibody survey was the first out of the gate several weeks ago. At a press conference on 9 April, virologist Hendrik Streeck from the University of Bonn announced preliminary results from a town of about 12,500 in Heinsberg, a region in Germany that had been hit hard by COVID-19. He told reporters his team had found antibodies to the virus in 14% of the 500 people tested. By comparing that number with the recorded deaths in the town, the study suggested the virus kills only 0.37% of the people infected. (The rate for seasonal influenza is about 0.1%.) The team concluded in a two-page summary that “15% of the population can no longer be infected with SARS-CoV-2, and the process of reaching herd immunity is already underway.” They recommended that politicians start to lift some of the regions’ restrictions.

 - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

[Philosopher]

42 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

It's hard to tell because we've also seen a dramatic increase in deaths at home. I doubt the "true" mortality rate is lower than 1.4% and is probably around 3%. It certainly won't be lower than South Korea's ~1%, given how much better their health care is than ours. A lot of it is due to America's horrendous health care system. 

The study out of southern California has already been vigorously condemned from all sides, so I wouldn't cite that as any kind of authority.

In Bergamo province in northern Italy, Wikipedia says excess deaths indicate that 0.57% of the total population there have died from this. So that would imply that the mortality rate of this illness in that area of Italy must be at least 0.57% but it is probably much more as not everyone there will have got the illness.

[elaine567]

Quote

Study of 17000 hospital admissions for Covid-19 in UK  found that of those admitted to hospital, 17% ended up going into intensive care units (ICUs). Of these, 45% died and for those receiving mechanical ventilation, the death rate rose to 53%, with 27% remaining in hospital when their outcome was recorded. For those on hospital wards, the fatality rate was 31%.
... “Despite the best supportive care that we can provide, the crude case fatality rate for people who are admitted to hospital with severe Covid-19 is 35% to 40% which is similar to that for people admitted to hospital with Ebola.”
... The study was carried out by a consortium of researchers across more than 160 hospitals, which has now recruited 25,000 patients, and taken biological samples from 1,000 of them, making it the largest study in Europe on outcomes and risk factors. The team is also looking closely at why a disproportionate number of admissions and deaths are seen in black people and those from south-east Asian backgrounds.

 And we wonder why we are in lockdown...

[sothereiwas]

11 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

 And we wonder why we are in lockdown...

Because a lot of people are terrible at math and logic?

What meaning do you extrapolate from those statistics? 

• Of those sick enough to go to a hospital means some unknown but likely small percentage of those infected.
• Now take 17% of that.
• Next take 45% of that, or less than 8% of those who were sick enough to come to hospital died.

The stats are admittedly poorly presented but some sources indicate that some vast majority of infected people don't ever go to a hospital. In NY, best estimates say something like 3 million have been infected with fewer than 25K deaths. That's nothing close to 17%, 45%, or any other number in the article. The article is clickbait. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by sothereiwas

[Happy Lemming]

Our "stay at home" (Arizona) order just got extended to May 15th.  I was kind of figuring it would be.

[gaius]

Denny's is now open for dine in in Georgia. At least one that is. If anyone's hungry.

[Libby1]

12 hours ago, lana-banana said:

Let's not forget that we've hit 60,000 deaths in about eight weeks---a number we were expected to hit in August. Our current confirmed mortality rate is around 5.6%, which is astronomical.

 

Yes, they originally set it at 82,000 by August then a couple of weeks ago there was some fanfare as they revised it downwards to 60,000 by August. No doubt a whole lot of work, thought, time and money goes into devising these predictive models.  Pity the average person can probably make a better guess than the models do.

[elaine567]

9 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Because a lot of people are terrible at math and logic?

What meaning do you extrapolate from those statistics? 

• Of those sick enough to go to a hospital means some unknown but likely small percentage of those infected.
• Now take 17% of that.
• Next take 45% of that, or less than 8% of those who were sick enough to come to hospital died.

The stats are admittedly poorly presented but some sources indicate that some vast majority of infected people don't ever go to a hospital. In NY, best estimates say something like 3 million have been infected with fewer than 25K deaths. That's nothing close to 17%, 45%, or any other number in the article. The article is clickbait. 

The article is reporting  a study carried out on those admitted to hospital with Covid-19.
Nothing is said or implied about those who stay at home or are asymptomatic.

You forget to add the people who die on the ward 27%.
So approximately 35% of people who are admitted to hospital with Covid-19 die.
Being admitted to hospital is thus no guarantee of survival.
Many old and frail people will not even get to the hospital, so despite that initial filter, the death rate is very high.
Hospitals and medical staff are not used to people being admitted for them to just die no matter what they do...