Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
- Status
And that is absolutely fine if that's how you want to go about living. I won't have second thoughts about going to those types of places, but that's my choice. You choose to wear a mask (if you do, I can't remember with all the back and forth); I choose not to wear a mask, but move swiftly through stores and not talk to anyone. Those are the choices we are free to make. No one is forcing another out into crowded spaces. Again, personal choices.
This shows me that UK daily cases have been trending up since end of March. Their PM had to be on a ventilator for a while.
Just like anything else that puts you on a ventilator in critical condition. Remember when he also played it off and now he's thinking about continuing their lockdown? What changed?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Mortality rate isn't just a simple number that is constant. It appears to go through the roof when a region has overwhelmed ICU, vent and overall hospital capacity.
There are regions in the US where either the population density is really high and there isn't enough hospital capacity isn't enough to treat everyone to the the extent they need. On the flipside I think if we left business as usual in rural communities with high elderly populations but very little nearby ICU capacity, the mortality rate's going to be high as well.
In addition to the treatment capacity issue, you could also argue for slowing spread long enough to allow for drugs to treat symptoms to be proven effective and safe. While I think this is possible, I'm not terribly optimistic this can be proven in a timeframe where those with health conditions that make them vulnerable to COVID-19 can tolerate such drugs.
So, IF you have a region where you are pretty confident you've got the hospital, vent, and ICU capacity to treat a huge spike, AND you don't think you can slow it long enough for drugs to be proven, then you could just let it run it's course. The advantage being places like long-term care facilities need to be on pretty much absolute lockdown, and the shorter they have to do that, the better.
Unfortunately, there aren't a ton of regions in the US that I think we can be confident that they can handle the huge spikes of patients.
It wasn’t a pandemic 6 months ago if that’s when patient zero was infected. So dumb.
Yes, it is pretty much for sure gone after the vaccine becomes available. Don't you believe in vaccines?
Yes, of course. Hopefully they get an effective one on the market soon before the projected 18 months.
Okay, Mr. Trump! After all, you are the genius. Of course I'm being sarcastic, but you deserve it.
Yeah, refusing to be hysterically frightened and myopically transfixed on the virus alone as the overreaction destroys the world's economy is deserving of criticism.
I can't believe this sort of logic exists with all of the evidence of carriers without symptoms.
Well, I can I guess.
Another point that I saw made yesterday - "Flu Deaths" include any death that the doctor identifies cause of death as flu or flu-like symptoms - which is NOT how COVID-19 deaths are identified. If you use the criteria being used for COVID (positive test) the number of flu deaths would be in the 3,000-5,000 range.
The assertion that the reaction to the virus is damaging the world economy rather than the virus itself is fallacious.
A couple comments:
Since this virus is on the high end of communicability, herd immunity is going to take a percentage on the high end of typical viruses.
Second, that mortality rate and people trying to compare it to flu is really deceiving. People are trying to extrapolate antibody tests to a total number of people in the population that were exposed to the virus whether they were a confirmed case, exhibited symptoms, or went to a hospital at all. While that is the best way to look at mortality rate of a disease, it's not how it's done for flu. If they used the same method to estimate mortality rate for flu it would probably be orders of magnitude lower. You have to get sick enough to go to the Dr. and get diagnosed to even be part of the mortality rate denominator for the flu.
I don't know about you, but between my wife, two kids and me we probably have had flu-like symptoms for more than 24 hours at least probably 30-50 times in the past 10 years and have exactly zero Dr. visits. So it's completely invalid to say "flu mortality rate is X, and with antibody tests it looks like COVID-19 is going to be 0.2%." I know you were not saying it in that post, but I think that is the natural comparison when looking at mortality rate.
Not to mention, if you assume 80% needed for herd immunity, no reinfections, and a 0.2% overall mortality rate, that's about 525,000 fatalities in the US.
It’s a coping mechanism of the fortunate. “Hey, I’m not selfish, I’m worried about the greater good”
Can we at least wait until we know more about this virus before we get impatient? Unfortunately, as a society we likely can’t wait as long as it will take to get a competent response, largely thanks to the Administration.
- Status
