Coronavirus Outbreak...

[lilpixieofterror]

According to CDC more than 1/3 of cases are age 44 and younger.

And what RWNJ always ignore is the fact that *many* who survive suffer from permanent health issues, such as kidney / lung damage and the like. Many don't die but also don't just "get better."

Reading is hard:

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisiona...nd-S/9bhg-hcku

Note I said confirmed cases (as in those confirmed in a lab). Try again.

[DivineOb]

Reading is hard:



Note I said confirmed cases (as in those confirmed in a lab). Try again.

Reading *is* hard (well, for RWNJs).

1) Your link is a deaths breakdown, not a cases breakdown.
2) You wrote (in the actual message I replied to)

My previous links tells the story. Over 90% of deaths and 85% of confirmed cases belong to those over 55

My link is to the CDC data on *confirmed cases* (as in those confirmed in a lab).

Sheesh

[lilpixieofterror]

Reading *is* hard (well, for RWNJs).

1) Your link is a deaths breakdown, not a cases breakdown.
2) You wrote (in the actual message I replied to)



My link is to the CDC data on *confirmed cases* (as in those confirmed in a lab).

Sheesh

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...are-have-virus

How many have a severe reaction?
Around 15%, mostly those already older or with serious health conditions.

Thus, protect elders or sick, and start working on reopening things for the rest.

[DivineOb]

Deaths involving Covid 19 - 85% over the age of 55. Looks confirmed.

But what you wrote was

As of now, 88% of confirmed China Flu positives and 92% of all deaths come from those 55 or over,

and

Over 90% of deaths and 85% of confirmed cases belong to those over 55 (most of those, were in Hospice care or Nursing homes).

and

Note I said confirmed cases (as in those confirmed in a lab)

So you were clearly referencing positive cases, not deaths.

I know, reading and riting is hard when you're an RWNJ. I promise not to tell your friends if I catch you doing some book larnin'.

How many have a severe reaction?
Around 15%, mostly those already older or with serious health conditions.

Thus, protect elders or sick, and start working on reopening things for the rest.

Maybe so, but that wasn't what *I* responded to. I know, I know, reeding is hard.

[firstfloor]

[little_monkey]

USA number one:

US No. 1.jpg

[firstfloor]

USA number one:

It looks a lot better when adjusted for population size. The important bit is whether the death rate is going up or coming down, although the lag is several weeks after the introduction or relaxation of control measures. You would not be able to drive a car with that much lag.

[carpedm9587]

So first, I don't see a link in your response to me. Second, I didn't say the elderly weren't significantly more impacted - I added information that was not in your post. This response does nothing to deal with that information. You are looking at one demographic without looking at the rest. Finally, when the rest of us "return to normal," we are putting those populations at higher risk. This is the population that most needs support from the rest of us, but we put them at risk if we have not done everything we can to reduce the spread of the virus in the general population.

None of this information is wrong. It simply doesn't address the issue. You acting as if the world is a set of discrete population where what happens in one population has no impact on any other population. That is simply not true. Indeed, the data seems to show that the virus gets INTO those senior homes due to the presence of the virus in the outside population. Nurses and doctors need to work there. These locations have janitorial staffs, deliveries from outside vendors, and the list goes on. These are all being ignored by your overly simplistic model.

[firstfloor]

The, off his trolley, POTUS, is taking Hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic, we hear.

[JimL]

The, off his trolley, POTUS, is taking Hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic, we hear.

Supposedly once a day for a week and a half, If you can believe him.

[lilpixieofterror]

But what you wrote was



and



and



So you were clearly referencing positive cases, not deaths.

I know, reading and riting is hard when you're an RWNJ. I promise not to tell your friends if I catch you doing some book larnin'.



Maybe so, but that wasn't what *I* responded to. I know, I know, reeding is hard.

[lilpixieofterror]

So first, I don't see a link in your response to me. Second, I didn't say the elderly weren't significantly more impacted - I added information that was not in your post. This response does nothing to deal with that information. You are looking at one demographic without looking at the rest. Finally, when the rest of us "return to normal," we are putting those populations at higher risk. This is the population that most needs support from the rest of us, but we put them at risk if we have not done everything we can to reduce the spread of the virus in the general population.

None of this information is wrong. It simply doesn't address the issue. You acting as if the world is a set of discrete population where what happens in one population has no impact on any other population. That is simply not true. Indeed, the data seems to show that the virus gets INTO those senior homes due to the presence of the virus in the outside population. Nurses and doctors need to work there. These locations have janitorial staffs, deliveries from outside vendors, and the list goes on. These are all being ignored by your overly simplistic model.

[carpedm9587]

Sources for these claims, please?

No one said "stop it," Pix. The operative term is "mitigate." Until there is a vaccine, mitigation is the best we have. That means masks, social distancing, proper hygiene, and is highly dependent on testing (which we are still falling short on).

The situation is often posed as a false dichotomy: lockdown versus reopen. The reality is a continuum. Lockdown brings risk of death due to economic and emotional factors. Reopening brings risk due to the virus. Lockdown for a long period of time and you minimize virus risks but maximize deaths due to lockdown-related factors. Lockdown for too short a period of time and you maximize virus risks but minimize deaths due to lockdown-related factors. There is a point of crossover between these two which is essentially impossible to predict.

Ergo - there is only one viable approach: establish careful, systematic, data-guided reopening criteria, and track infections as well as deaths due to both factors - then adjust reopening in light of the data - reopening slower or even reversing direction if virus-related deaths surge and lockdown-related deaths do not, and reopening faster if lockdown-related deaths surge and virus-related deaths do not. We have the tools for doing this. What is missing is effective leadership to put the tools in place and ensure they are used.

Instead, we have politicians (and private individuals) playing partisan games, encouraging whatever faction that most aligns with their "base" and denigrating "the other side." The inevitable results of that will be needless deaths.

[DivineOb]

It means you should be a little more careful before throwing around "reading is hard" and such extreme snark towards those who are clearly your intellectual betters. RWNJs are just so unfathomably lazy and want all the credibility and accolades for hard intellectual work but are totally unwilling to lift a finger to accomplish those things.

Do better and be more humble.

[Whateverman]

we have politicians (and private individuals) playing partisan games, encouraging whatever faction that most aligns with their "base" and denigrating "the other side." The inevitable results of that will be needless deaths.

I'm pretty sure that particular ship sailed a while ago...