think about your mom wrote:
You don't care if someone transmits the virus to your elderly relatives? You know that is much more likely to happen if the country goes about business as usual, don't you?
The CORRECT solution to all of this would have been to urge AT-RISK people to be on lockdown and self-isoloation. Not put THE WHOLE COUNTRY and ECONOMY on lockdown.
wtfbbq wrote:
Not sure what there is to discuss. Just like the experts have been predicting: COVID 19 is much deadlier than flu.
This just proves it. It’s a novel virus, it’s only been in the US for a couple of months. Insane the speed it is moving.
The posts after yours proves that people need to see vast numbers of people dying for real before accepting any of the earlier projections.
Obviously the current rate isn't impressive enough to concern people.
More and more people have to die before these people say "gee, I guess it is worse than the flu".
Stop the rubbish. There is no active denominator. No testing, so you don't know if the death rate is accurate.
Its only killing old, fragile patients. Hospice patients like that die every minute. It doesn't mean the are dying of covid 19.
This has been around in China since 11/ 19. For 3 months there were no travel restrictions at all. The entire population may have already been exposed and no symptoms.
We have lost 22k to the flu in the few months of the year. People of all ages.
I suggest you wash your hands and stop with the rubbish. If you keep away from people you should be fine.
think about your mom wrote:
This guy knows what's up wrote:
We do not ever do any crazy changes to normal life for the flu. So why are we turning the world upside down for this? I could see limiting crowd sizes or some of the initial things we did, but completely shutting things down is ridiculous.
You don't care if someone transmits the virus to your elderly relatives? You know that is much more likely to happen if the country goes about business as usual, don't you?
How would someone transmit a virus to my elderly relatives if they are self isolating?
ebolaSuzanne wrote:
There is no active denominator. No testing, so you don't know if the death rate is accurate.
Correct.
You would like to see more carnage (more data) before saying there is a big issue.
Star wrote:
Correct.
You would like to see more carnage (more data) before saying there is a big issue.
No, what they're saying is that there are scores of untested but positive people who showed no symptoms and recovered that we'll never know about. So instead of 900 deaths on 50,000 cases it is probably more like 900 deaths on 200,000 cases, thus making it less deadly than people like you are implying. The denominator is unknown but larger than the media would like you to know.
It’s comparable to the H1N1 outbreak. Additionally the patient population for coronavirus is very understated. The number of flu patients is much more defined due to rapid testing (basically everyone that sees a doctor gets a flu test if they have symptoms).
real info wrote:
If the current vaccine was entirely ineffective, with a new one at least a year away, and the number of flu deaths was rising exponentially and starting to overwhelm the medical system unless drastic measures were taken, HELL YES we would shut down the economy if that's what it took to survive. Good grief, do you even think before you write?
I live in Florida, one of the states being accused of irresponsibly handling all of this, and to date we have 1900 cases and 23 deaths. Only a percentage of that 1900 has required hospitalization. There are 303 hospitals in Florida. That means dozens of hospitals haven't even had an admission for this illness. The correct response would be urging only the at-risk people to be on lockdown/isolation, not trash our freakin economy and make hundreds of thousands (oh wait sorry, millions now) of people go on unemployment
This guy knows what's up wrote:
unemployedquestion wrote:
You do realize there’s a vaccine for the flu and it’s still killing all those people right? And it’s killed 215 average every single day since Jan 1, right? Not just one day, but 85 straight days... with a vaccine out there also lowering the death count... but we don’t let that destroy our economy every year
+1
Even if covid-19 is worse than the flu, it's not some outrageous virus that is way way worse. It's in the same range as the flu, just a little bit more.
We do not ever do any crazy changes to normal life for the flu. So why are we turning the world upside down for this? I could see limiting crowd sizes or some of the initial things we did, but completely shutting things down is ridiculous.
Why do you think the CDC/WHO reacts differently to COVID-19 than the flu? Perhaps because they know what they are talking about?
If daily deaths right now are on par with the flu, but the death rate keeps increasing, at what point will the death rate be double the flu? What is the avg hospital stay for the flu v COVID-19? What are the resources needed?
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
Why do you think the CDC/WHO reacts differently to COVID-19 than the flu? Perhaps because they know what they are talking about?
If daily deaths right now are on par with the flu, but the death rate keeps increasing, at what point will the death rate be double the flu? What is the avg hospital stay for the flu v COVID-19? What are the resources needed?
Alan
The CDC/WHO reacted pretty much the same as with H1N1 but with some slightly stronger recommendations - it has been the media that then revved this up into a fear-mongering debacle with politically-motivated undertones.
unemployedquestion2 wrote:
think about your mom wrote:
You don't care if someone transmits the virus to your elderly relatives? You know that is much more likely to happen if the country goes about business as usual, don't you?
The CORRECT solution to all of this would have been to urge AT-RISK people to be on lockdown and self-isoloation. Not put THE WHOLE COUNTRY and ECONOMY on lockdown.
+1
Brain power at work here - like it.
83% who get the virus have mild or no symptoms. And that 83% can be both young & older people (there are many healthy, very fit older people with no underlying medical conditions). The at-risk people are biggest danger here. Compromised immune systems from underlying medical conditions increases their risk significantly of complications from respiratory track infections Why aren't these people identified and quarantine? The rest of us healthy and fit people are being punished for the increasing number of unhealthy people in this country.
If the President's coronavirus task force is so concerned with "most vulnerable of society" then get them quarantined right away!
unemployedquestion2 wrote:
Star wrote:
Correct.
You would like to see more carnage (more data) before saying there is a big issue.
No, what they're saying is that there are scores of untested but positive people who showed no symptoms and recovered that we'll never know about. So instead of 900 deaths on 50,000 cases it is probably more like 900 deaths on 200,000 cases, thus making it less deadly than people like you are implying. The denominator is unknown but larger than the media would like you to know.
You seem fixated on the death rate per number infected.
We're talking about the raw number of deaths in total per day increasing each day.
And the number of people getting sick and seeking medical care increasing each day.
But that wouldn't be fair to those people who lived an unhealthy life. Everyone should suffer equally. So we will tank the economy for everyone and the unhealthiest will tax the healthcare system also. You shouldn't be able to go to work to support your family. You certainly shouldn't be able to have your children enjoy their childhood by participating in organized sports or going to school.
Star wrote:
And the number of people getting sick and seeking medical care increasing each day.
Don't forget that they have attributed the top reason for the increase in those testing positive are the number of available tests. It is hard to test positive when testing is not available. This virus may have peaked long ago or be climbing in numbers, but we didn't test early (it was a hoax) so how do we know one way or the other.
Star wrote:
unemployedquestion2 wrote:
No, what they're saying is that there are scores of untested but positive people who showed no symptoms and recovered that we'll never know about. So instead of 900 deaths on 50,000 cases it is probably more like 900 deaths on 200,000 cases, thus making it less deadly than people like you are implying. The denominator is unknown but larger than the media would like you to know.
You seem fixated on the death rate per number infected.
We're talking about the raw number of deaths in total per day increasing each day.
And the number of people getting sick and seeking medical care increasing each day.
The death rate is really all that matters. As the raw numbers of deaths go up we are also seeing the raw numbers of positive but non-fatal cases go up even more rapidly as testing increases to find those mildly ill people. If we find out that only 0.25% of people with the virus end up dying - and they are almost all elderly or already at-risk/unhealthy people - then this has been a colossal mistake for destroying our economy.
It is not a choice between saving the economy and allowing COVID 19 to run its natural course. COVID 19 running its natural course will ruin the economy. The number of people ill with coronoavirus who need to be in intensive care dwarfs the number of people with flu that need similar care. That is what makes CV so dangerous. If you let it run rampant, what is happening in places like New Orleans and Albany, Georgia will happen in every community in the United States except that it will be much worse. Every private and public health system will go bankrupt. Every health insurer will go bankrupt. Health care spending in the US is about 18% of GDP. You cannot destroy @1/5 of the economy and expect everything to be rosy.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/us/southwest-georgia-icu-units-full/index.html
No, the number of people seeking care from medical providers is what really matters.
Even if there is a zero % death rate, but a high influx of sick people from a high infection rate, then we can't handle that.
Precious Roy wrote:
It is not a choice between saving the economy and allowing COVID 19 to run its natural course. COVID 19 running its natural course will ruin the economy. The number of people ill with coronoavirus who need to be in intensive care dwarfs the number of people with flu that need similar care.
I live in Florida where the response for a long time to this was minimal and this was essentially allowed to run its natural course - significantly unimpeded - for many weeks until very recently. To date we have total 1950 cases and 23 deaths. Only a fraction of the 1950 cases required hospitalization and only a fraction of those actually required intensive care. I don't see how that could be seen as a threat to our economy and healthcare system if after 2 months of unchecked virus time passed in a state of this size and with that many elderly people we have dozens of hospitals that didn't even see an admission (there are 303 hospitals in Florida). What HAS ruined our economy is making healthy people stay home and shutter their businesses. Nationally, at-risk people should have been immediately isolated and that should have been the extent of all this. NY is the only place possibly starting to feel the healthcare squeeze and that's because there were 4million people riding subways. If they had shut down the subways then NY would have a fraction of the number of cases and be like all the other states.
Star wrote:
No, the number of people seeking care from medical providers is what really matters.
Even if there is a zero % death rate, but a high influx of sick people from a high infection rate, then we can't handle that.
The numbers are showing that 83% of people require no medical attention at all. Like I said, since more people are positive but undiagnosed, in reality it is more like 90%+ require no medical attention at all. So there has not been much of an influx of care required when you consider that 37 states have less than 1000 CASES to date. Additionally, all this media fear-mongering is actually causing more people to go in for care when they normally wouldn't have - and don't actually need care.
sick and dead wrote:
Also... on average, Americans are obsessed, sick, addicted to presentation drugs and have endless preconditions due to all three.
As a society we have made it socially acceptable to be fat and sick.
We are seeing the result of that.
Yes!! maybe we as a country will finally learn and change our habits. Hopefully when this is over diet, exercise, alcohol and tobacco, and other factors that contribute to all aspects of health will be prioritized.