Tex-s

It is dubious (at best) to compare deaths/confirmed cases, as testing limitations and the fact that a great number of infections are mild / unreported. Essentially, we don't know the numerator OR the denominator for these stats to be verifiable. The following data is from an audio-only pod cast, so some numbers are rounded for clarity and brevity, but the point made IS valid

From the CDC February 1 - April 11
The data presented for each group are COVID death / total deaths in the age group , % of total deaths

Age less than 1 0 deaths
1-4 2 deaths (total not mentioned)
5-14 1 death (total not mentioned)
15-24 13 / 5000 , 0.26%
25-34 113 / 11000 , 1.02%
35 44 289 / 16000 , 1.8%
45-54 751 / 30500 , 2.5%
55-64 1773 / 74000, 2.4 %
65-74 2900 / 114000, 2.5%
75-84 3576 / 144000, 2.5%

The analysis / conclusion is as follows:

As you look at older and older populations, more people die, both from COVID and also from all other causes.
At a maximum, COVID is accounting for 2.5% of deaths in any group.
Because there is no reason to assume older populations are being INFECTED at higher rates (in fact, impulsive behaviors, priority of social life, and a greater network of person to person physical contacts in young adults and school and sports contacts for juveniles, THEIR rate should be higher) its obvious that, statistically, the chances a person under 45 dies from a COVID infection is comparable or below the chances they die in a car accident.

It is patently obvious that the preparations and precautions needed to protect the more vulnerable are necessary for those folks, but it appears that the vast majority of the work force is, statistically, not much at risk.

There are TWO curves that have to be evaluated : COVID is only one of them. The other curve is the cumulative negative effects, both now and down the line, on business, on employment, on tax revenues, on mental health, on the future health of those who are not receiving care now (***see below***) and on families whose stress and anxiety have exploded.

I'm in the 45-54 group, and I'm perfectly willing to increase my chance of death for a 100% chance at LIVING my live until death arrives. I'm perfectly willing to risk the 2.5% increase to have a national economy that was offering my son-in-law-to-be a 60k starting salary in his first job out of college, instead of the unemployment and helplessness he and my daughter are experiencing. I just believe this crisis is being manipulated to bolster governmental necessity and influence over us and I don't like it.

*** An 18 year old senior near me has an initial diagnosis of a degenerative kidney problem and was referred to specialists. This student has been told by the government that further testing and treatment for the condition is NOT essential. All clinics that do the specialized testing are in places that are shut down at least all the ones to which referral was recommended. Only an acute kidney failure will warrant 'essential' status.... Stories like this are unacceptable in a system that CAN attend to the problem but is being told 'NO' by the government. 16 total deaths in the under 24 age group by COVID. 5000+ deaths overall. I wonder how many of the 5000 might be from issues that could have been attended in clinics that were forcibly shut......

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

I realize this is a rant, which is perfectly fine, but I do have a question............how would the government(and what government are we talking about)be involved in the decision making when it comes to medical treatment?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Why aren’t we counting cases where the patient doesn’t die, but their life is altered forever by the virus? (It’s an honest question, but it seems likely that no one here has the answer) Many people suffer life long injury at the hands of this virus.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Why do you support the head of the government that you disparage?

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

And even at birth which more than likely explain you.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

Amen brother! But remember...." The Bill of Rights is above their pay grade! "


I just heard on the news this AM that Neiman Marcus and a 500 year old brewery in Germany have also fallen victim to the virus.

Tex-s

The government / state / local policy is not making treatment decisions, but preventing doctors and patients from doing so. I'm hopeful the policy is flawed via human error rather than human ambition.

The governor / local governments made a list of 'essential services' and NOT among them was elective surgeries, even those like back injuries, which is another example. (A former colleague has a herniated disc and cannot go have surgery, cannot go to the non-surgical center which was closed, and cannot go to his work, which is 'essential' because he is on prescription narcotics, and has been now for just over 3 months. The shut-off preceded his surgery by 4 days...)

Also deemed 'not essential' were most or all area diagnostic facilities like youth cardiology, internist facility, OBGYN offices other than high risk pregnancy services, and other satellite services, the ones across or down the street from the main hospitals, are all closed. (The idea, it seems, was to service only emergency presentations of acute symptoms at Emergency Rooms and to encourage those who probably do have COVID to NOT go to the ER...... ?) This of course from the same brilliant minds that are telling law-abiding hair stylists they will be fined, arrested, or jailed if they cut hair, but are releasing drug runners and rapists from prison.

My student falls into the cracks, as all of the providers to whom a referral was made are closed, at least within a 300 mile radius. Understand, and I checked with a local surgeon on this (former student), even if it were the case that my student was in imminent renal failure, but not yet on dialysis, and I was both a willing donor and a match, the donation would be blocked under current policy as 'elective'.

Please don't tell me the plan is actually to 'save lives' when it's only one specific column to which anyone is paying attention, and don't try to get me to believe that ANY governmental and/or health agency will EVER admit that this one-size-fits-all approach was sub-optimal, even if Sweden ends up with the same general numbers at 1/10000000 the social costs.

I'd be willing to accept some of this policy more easily if ANY actual analysis of peripheral costs other than 'the economy' were being debated, but the media can't be bothered to ask meaningful questions. At least they can be counted on to distort numbers by counting totals at the first of a paragraph and counting per capita at the end, to paint a negative image of course.....

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

Why do you go out of your way to misinterpret things people say that you disagree with and then proceed to put words in their mouth that follows your twisted illogic?

Tex-s

Actually, it's inaccurate to say I 'support' anyone or anything about Trump or his administration. What's accurate to say is a vehemently oppose the socialist agenda of the left and there are only two teams. I'm actually opposing both the President and the media here, a case that must create an infinite loop error for devout leftists.

***edit*** Infinite loop error might miss the mark for some of you, so I'll illustrate it.
The following statement is TRUE.
The preceding statement was FALSE.

This infinite loop paradox is the same paradox I feel the left must face when the media is shown to be false, as their core assumption is that media is TRUE!!!!!

Tex-s

It's not being discussed for at least 3 reasons (just off the top of my head)
1) to discuss long term effects, the media has to admit to the survival rate
2) the immediate response from the medical establishment will be that we can't predict long term 'anything' about survivors without some data from the actual 'long term'
3) the media are married to the shut-down, everything is terrible, we are all going to die, and Orange man bad narratives, and allowing reason #2 to occur just MIGHT be used as ammunition to assail the long term models that have been the life blood of the shut down.

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

I'll address the first sentence of your response.

I have seen my doctor(s) several times since the"lock down" for reasons far less severe than your example and not once has government(since you felt it necessary not to disclose what government) even suggested that I don't.

Sorry, the remaining response is a wandering diatribe.....

mwalsh Loc: Houston

SOP for the attic...all sides.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I had what I felt was elective surgery on the 23rd. When I saw all the “no elective surgery” signs and literature I contacted the surgeon who said it was up to me. Could they be defining “elective” as surgery not needed to correct a medical problem? Mine was for health issues, but wasn’t urgent.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

The man I directed my post to didn’t react like you have. Could it be that you are just looking for something to fight over?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I’m not referring to symptoms that may show up in the future, but to damage observable right now that aren’t going away. It is supposed to pretty much ravage the lungs of many of it’s victims, and they are now saying it seems to damage kidneys. I’m suspecting that many of the “recovered” aren’t really all that recovered. They are simply no longer sick with this virus.