posted by gutThe biggest argument against the lockdown is we couldn't even protect our nursing homes.
I would say the biggest argument against a lockdown is that this thing isnt as serious as we thought.
posted by gutIn some states half the deaths are nursing homes. Most of the rest of the deaths the average age is around 80 with multiple comorbities. For the rest of the population, the risk is indeed on par with the flu.
I think the worst you could say is this is like the flu with no vaccine (which often is only about 50% effective, but still helps if you get infected).
The nursing home thing, which seems to be getting an uptick in coverage in the last few days, really doesn't surprise me. The age is probably a factor, of course, as there is a correlation between age and the likelihood of a compromised immune system. Just as well, though, you're likely forced into contact with health workers who, best efforts or not, are interacting with a number of people over the course of the day.
In effect, I think the nursing home example actually demonstrates why a person having a healthy immune system and no comorbidities is only half the matter, as not everyone you would likely interact with over the normal course of a day has an equally healthy immune system without any comorbidities. Sort of a 'Typhoid Mary' element to the whole thing.
Also, if we use age and other conditions with regard to this virus, we'd have to do the same with the flu to make an adequate parallel. The mortality rate for the flu is already small, without taking those elements into account. For an apples-to-apples comparison between the two, if you give weight to the effect of age and additional health factors in the case of COVID-19, you'd have to do the same with the flu.
Per April's metrics, in NYC (to use as a microcosm, since it's obviously the biggest US hotspot at present), about 50% of the ones who died from it were over 75, so of course, that will obviously account for the average age being weighted that way. But if we take the number of recovered cases against the total number of finalized cases, and we completely remove that age range entirely, it's still significantly more dangerous than the flu. Again, even if you're healthy and young, the possibility for a Typhoid Mary situation would cause problems in the normal course of events.
I'm not suggesting, of course, that the ratio we have now will be the final one, of course. The time it takes to get over the illness is probably longer than is useful for an illness for which we were fairly late out of the gate with testing.
Still, this past flu season had, per the CDC, a mortality rate between about 0.04% and 0.16% (24K to 62K deaths against 39M to 56M cases). Those are finalized numbers, given the short lifespan of the flu virus (per my doctor in January, a normal flu virus lasts about ten to fourteen days). The current finalized numbers of COVID-19 in the US are just over 94,000 deaths against about 397,000 finalizes cases (recovered + died). That rate is, at present, 23.7%.
I'm not arguing that it will stay there. I'm merely saying that even if we don't factor in any age or health-related elements to the flu (like we are with COVID-19), using the current number of total cases, we'd need the mortality rate of finalized cases to drop from 23.7% to between absolute zero (since we've already had too many deaths compared to total cases to put it on the low end of the flu mortality rate spectrum) and 0.12% from here on out to match flu numbers.
Nearly every single relevant voice seems to suggest that it will drop, even significantly, but I'm skeptical we'll see the remaining cases end with a mortality rate that is about 0.5% of what it's been thus far seems naively optimistic. Obviously, I hope that's not true, but I have yet to see someone explain how that's likely.
posted by O-TrapNearly every single relevant voice seems to suggest that it will drop, even significantly, but I'm skeptical we'll see the remaining cases end with a mortality rate that is about 0.5% of what it's been thus far seems naively optimistic.
0.5% will probably end-up on the high side, about 3X higher than a bad flu season. But because of vaccines, the mortality rate for the vulnerable is much higher than the flu. I think you'll find that's where the numbers skew. For the vast majority of people, even 3-5X deadlier than the flu is still a negligible number. Otherwise healthy individuals dying from this are mainly due to overreactive immune systems, same as with the flu.
And data from Sweden recently estimates overall mortality at 0.2%. Antibody tests suggest spread of 10-20X or more of actual diagnosed cases. If you're trying to divide deaths by recovered to estimate the risk, you're off by a factor well over 10 as tens of millions of people have already had this and recovered from it.
posted by gut0.5% will probably end-up on the high side, about 3X higher than a bad flu season. But because of vaccines, the mortality rate for the vulnerable is much higher than the flu. I think you'll find that's where the numbers skew. For the vast majority of people, even 3-5X deadlier than the flu is still a negligible number. Otherwise healthy individuals dying from this are mainly due to overreactive immune systems, same as with the flu.
And data from Sweden recently estimates overall mortality at 0.2%. Antibody tests suggest spread of 10-20X or more of actual diagnosed cases. If you're trying to divide deaths by recovered to estimate the risk, you're off by a factor well over 10 as tens of millions of people have already had this and recovered from it.
I'm merely dividing deaths by the sum total of recovered cases and deaths combined because it's more honest with the numbers than just dividing deaths by total cases when trying to evaluate the actual mortality rate of the virus itself, the majority of which don't have a final result yet. Putting a pending result into either category would be akin to evaluating the final grades of a classroom of students at the midterms. Sure, you'll have an idea, based on the data so far, but you wouldn't estimate a 20x shift from that data thus far.
As for the info out of Sweden, if that's true, that's certainly encouraging, and I would hope that turns out to be the case. I read about that study a few days ago, and it was actually showing a pretty low rate of the presence of antibodies, even the highest age demographic being under 10% of a fairly small test sample, with anyone over the age of 65 being something under maybe 3%? I suppose that means people in that demographic have been self-quarantining, and I'd actually argue that it's a testament to what might be accomplished without legal restrictions, since Sweden really didn't enforce anything.
Still, last I saw, that study was still pretty early. Maybe 1,000 people tested? I'm not sure I'm ready to extrapolate that out to tens of millions yet.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI think you're right. The only thing I hear about in Alabama is "why did that go on as long as it did?" and "why the hell did school get cancelled like that?" Both relevant questions. This state didn't have the militancy Ohio did and our numbers are no worse. That tells me the lockdown, while an understandable initial reaction to a huge unknown, was way overused and has had no beneficial effects.
Agreed.
You’re batting .500 today.
posted by SpockI would say the biggest argument against a lockdown is that this thing isnt as serious as we thought.
Eh, I'd say that the biggest one is that it's a violation of natural rights, which I don't think are justified even if some person or group arbitrarily decides that a problem is "serious" enough.
posted by O-TrapEh, I'd say that the biggest one is that it's a violation of natural rights, which I don't think are justified even if some person or group arbitrarily decides that a problem is "serious" enough.
Plus it wasn't a real "lockdown". Stores that sell groceries or other essential items, got to stay open. That meant that they could also sell anything else in the store. So the guy down the street that owns a running shoe store had to close because that's all he sells. Yet I could go into Target anytime and buy a pair of running shoes since Target, with its groceries, was "essential".
posted by O-TrapSure, you'll have an idea, based on the data so far, but you wouldn't estimate a 20x shift from that data thus far.
Yes, I would. Study after study has been showing 20-30X or more people have had this than were diagnosed. NYC did random testing and determined 25% of people have been infected. That's 2M+ in NYC, vs. 200k reported cases and 15.4k deaths. If I use your math, I get like a 12% mortality rate. If I use the likely numbers of, say, 20k deaths vs. 2M cases that is 1%, but half of those are nursing homes. And that's part of what is driving higher mortality in NYC.
As I said, most estimates taking into account what the denominator likely and truly is are < 0.5%. Early estimates were 1.0% before this virus was understood to be much more contagious and much higher % of asymptomatic cases. In other words, they estimated 1.0% before it was known that the denominator was at least double what they thought.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/covid-19/data/demographics.cfm
First chart, Cases & Deaths by age group in a St. Louis sampling.
Everyone under 50's mortality rate rounds to 0. 50-59 is approx. 3.4%, but again we can assume that number of reported cases is at least 10-20X. Not until over 70 does the rate climb appreciably. About 90% of the deaths are over 70.
Here's NY,,, 75% of the deaths had underlying conditions. 1% did not. 25% unknown, but I think I saw 96% of hospitalization had underlying conditions and that's not inconsistent with this data. So, again, less than 70 with no underlying conditions and your risk is negligble.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
Bye bye W.H.O.
Good to see the President used federal resources to disperse a peaceful crowd with teargas and rubber bullets so he can take a fucking photo in front of a church.
Seriously. He just said he supports peaceful protests and then teargasses them so he can have a photo op. At least go inside the church or something...
What a fucking asshole.
posted by QuakerOats
Bye bye W.H.O.
Way to applaud the walking back of American leadership and support. You do know China will gladly step in and fill the void. We are just ceding American leadership.
Trump the last few days just revealed himself as a fucking asshole.
Oh the head of the church the President cleared the peaceful protest with teargas is pretty furious they were used as a photo op according an interview with the Post.
What a fucking asshole.
But is he a fucking asshole?
Just how drunk were you?
posted by queencitybuckeyeBut is he a fucking asshole?
Just how drunk were you?
Yeah, the President is a fucking asshole. When you think of most of things he says and does, he is an asshole.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yeah, the President is a fucking asshole. When you think of most of things he says and does, he is an asshole.
Yes he is, this is new news?
posted by queencitybuckeyeYes he is, this is new news?
Nope. But, his actions yesterday were a whole new level of beyond being an asshole.
The President of the United Stated talked about his support for peaceful protests, but at the same time used federal forces to fire tear gas and rubber bullets on a peaceful protests so he can walk across the street and take a photo for no reason.
What's to stop the President now from expanding federal power to stroke his own ego now?
Hey, you know why there was no church leaders during his photo? Welp, because they were forced to leave their own church by the use of teargas.
Seriously, how fucked up was this move?
posted by ptown_trojans_1Nope. But, his actions yesterday were a whole new level of beyond being an asshole.
The President of the United Stated talked about his support for peaceful protests, but at the same time used federal forces to fire tear gas and rubber bullets on a peaceful protests so he can walk across the street and take a photo for no reason.
What's to stop the President now from expanding federal power to stroke his own ego now?
A candidate that's not equally if not more evil (2016) or profoundly senile (2020)?
posted by queencitybuckeyeA candidate that's not equally if not more evil (2016) or profoundly senile (2020)?
Would Biden have fired tear gas to clear a park so he can have a photo in front of a church? The President tear gassed his own citizens for a photo op....
I doubt it. Biden would probably do what he did yesterday....meet with people in a church for a discussion....
posted by ptown_trojans_1The President of the United Stated talked about his support for peaceful protests, but at the same time used federal forces to fire tear gas and rubber bullets on a peaceful protests so he can walk across the street and take a photo for no reason.
Here is there explanation, which is obviously to be taken with a grain of salt. Smoke not tear gas, and they were acting out. You’re also being a little disingenuous pretending their wasn’t a 7pm curfew.
https://twitter.com/augensteinwtop/status/1267791336146636800?s=21
posted by iclfan2Here is there explanation, which is obviously to be taken with a grain of salt. Smoke not tear gas, and they were acting out. You’re also being a little disingenuous pretending their wasn’t a 7pm curfew.
https://twitter.com/augensteinwtop/status/1267791336146636800?s=21
Yeah that does not match what I was seeing and the local news anchors on the ground were saying. I was watching NBC4 and they had 4 reporters all around the area. They said around 6:30, a full 30 mins before the curfew, things started to go sideways. People were largely peaceful. They did say some people were throwing water bottles, but those were quickly IDed, told to stop, and the crowd was largely peaceful, kneeling, and chanting peacefully. The reporters were saying this was calmer compared to the last few days. The reporters also even said it was teargas, not just smoke. Hell one reporter saw one woman getting her face washed out from the gas. It was also rubber bullets.
As I said, the local reporters, who have seen it all in DC over the years, noted many times, how over the top this was at the time.
If it was to clear the area for the 7pm curfew fine. But, it was not yet 7pm....It was 6:30pm. There was a reason why you heard the booms of gas canisters while Trump was speaking. The fact it was cleared not for the curfew, but for his photo op makes it that much worse.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yeah that does not match what I was seeing and the local news anchors on the ground were saying. I was watching NBC4 and they had 4 reporters all around the area. They said around 6:30, a full 30 mins before the curfew, things started to go sideways. People were largely peaceful. They did say some people were throwing water bottles, but those were quickly IDed, told to stop, and the crowd was largely peaceful, kneeling, and chanting peacefully. The reporters were saying this was calmer compared to the last few days. The reporters also even said it was teargas, not just smoke. Hell one reporter saw one woman getting her face washed out from the gas. It was also rubber bullets.
As I said, the local reporters, who have seen it all in DC over the years, noted many times, how over the top this was at the time.
If it was to clear the area for the 7pm curfew fine. But, it was not yet 7pm....It was 6:30pm. There was a reason why you heard the booms of gas canisters while Trump was speaking. The fact it was cleared not for the curfew, but for his photo op makes it that much worse.
7pm curfew means you arent there at 7pm. Its you are gone and home at 7pm. So clearing and moving people by 630 seems logical.