NonDawg Word is ANGC making plans to
- Thread starter RoyDawgMercer
- Start date
For those that are saying "it's just the flu" here is why that is not helpful in my opinion:
- It is a new disease, that we don't know a lot about. We don't know the incubation period, we don't know how long you can pass it on after the symptoms are gone. We don't know if it can be spread airborne. So, the newness of it is causing a lot of the anxiety.
- Because it is new, people don't have immunity to it, and a vaccine and other drugs to prevent it, or lessen it, aren't available.
- We don't know the mortality rate, but thus far seems to be higher than the flu. That said, I suspect many of your were shocked like I was to learn how many people die from the flu each year. I had no idea. My guess is that we don't have any idea how many people have had it, but I'd bet it's twice what has been reported, which means the mortality rate is half what is being reported.
These are things we just don't know, and that is why everyone is somewhat anxious, IMO.
- It is a new disease, that we don't know a lot about. We don't know the incubation period, we don't know how long you can pass it on after the symptoms are gone. We don't know if it can be spread airborne. So, the newness of it is causing a lot of the anxiety.
- Because it is new, people don't have immunity to it, and a vaccine and other drugs to prevent it, or lessen it, aren't available.
- We don't know the mortality rate, but thus far seems to be higher than the flu. That said, I suspect many of your were shocked like I was to learn how many people die from the flu each year. I had no idea. My guess is that we don't have any idea how many people have had it, but I'd bet it's twice what has been reported, which means the mortality rate is half what is being reported.
These are things we just don't know, and that is why everyone is somewhat anxious, IMO.
Agree. Saw a study that indicates death rate could actually be around 0.5% based on high rate of undiagnosed. That rate should probably not be panic-inducing but is still 5 times the death rate of influenza over time (0.1%).
Interesting other findings *at this point*:
1. Death rate may be falling quickly as disease progresses (apparently a normal phenomenon when a new disease emerges).
2. There were literally zero deaths among 9 and under in the entire world so far. Also a remarkably lower overall infection rate among younger population. Researchers kind of scratching heads on that.
This comes from reading I have done because a family member is scheduled for overseas travel and assessing risk.
Last edited:
Perhaps some comfort on possible effects on younger folks:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/he...-puzzling-experts/ar-BB10HTgM?ocid=spartanntp
FWIW - it *appears* part of the strategy here revolves around not so much containing as slowing down the disease. That if the cases can be spread out over time it protects the capacity of the health care system which is dealing with the seasonal spike in flu and other "normal" diseases.
With warmer weather just around the corner in the N Hemisphere that seems part of the strategy too, as warmer weather obviously reduces the rate of respiratory diseases like this, as well as flu, etc.
So the threat from this particular virus is heightened especially to older people with other conditions. However the precautions being taken *may* be as much about protecting health system capacity / preventing the negative consequences of it becoming even temporarily overloaded (and how that will make it harder to deal with so many other health problems as well).
Also FWIW, heard two seemingly reasonable reports on BBC in the last 24 questioning if perhaps the US is going overboard in response. I think that is a discussion worth having especially since there is a standard response of closing schools when the virus is not really affecting the young right now at a high rate and has caused zero fatalities worldwide.
My wife has a friend in the school supply business here in Texas. She had a school district from Oregon call yesterday and ordered 9000 8 Oz bottles of hand sanitizer. When she told them that she had other orders for them as well, they told her that they would pay $7.99 per bottle to completely fill their order first.
The data seems to support this nonchalant attitude for people under 50-60. It doesn’t support it for geriatrics, but put them at risk if you want to.
Ok then. Your older family members and friends need you to have perspective that YOU are putting them at risk for selfish reasons.
An over the top insane approach to even consider a final decision at this point iIF in fact that is the case. Discuss yes, but wait it out and then make a good and informed decision.
ANGC gotta CYA especially with all the Far East and European travelers in attendance.... not to mention Old Farts like me.
I just report the news. I don't make it. See the post re the letter already sent out to ticket holders.
It's not Fake Anything. That's bullsh!t. And the virus could absolutely be down in 4 weeks which I'm certain everyone hopes is the case. But it could also be spreading, too. It's early but an event like the one at ANGC is international in scope with a lot of ticket holders above age 60. They MUST at least plan for the worst while everyone hopes for the best.
That's factually incorrect.
It was all meant to impress you, because...you know...I get my rocks off on humble bragging about the freakin flu.
We don’t know what we know.....and we don’t know what we don’t know about COVID-19.
If this report is accurate, it shows why uninformed institutional panic is a problem and adhering to facts rather than "erring on the side of caution" must occur.
Based on infection rates and mortality rates of COVID-19, those hand sanitizer bottles need to first be in age care facilities, not schools.
Agree. We are dropping the ball here. Despite all the evidence proving the problem, I havent yet heard any official discuss the issues pertaining to the older age groups. Nothing about social distancing the young from old in the community.
You've been right on target this thread with your points.
My counsel to those over 60 is this. If Covid-9 activity in your community starts to escalate, and viral circulation increases, you'd do well to isolate yourself as best you can.
A 3.6% mortality rate for 60-70 years old is profoundly significant.and above 70, it worsens as your graph has shown.
Educate those in your care who are willing to listen, that is all you can do.
There are many normally rational people, thoughtful, well reasoned, both on this board, and in real life, who simply don't believe. Hey, I hope they turn out to be right. Until then, I'll deal with the data presented.
When large, multinational corporations take it seriously, when Wall St is apparently taking it seriously, when the most populous nation on earth institutes draconian measures to contain it, it probably warrants a second look.
This woman is my wife’s best friend. I wholeheartedly believe her.
I will make an admittedly grim prediction.
Before Fall football practice starts over a dozen people on this board will personally know someone (for some it will be family members) who will have have either died or at least spent time in ICU from COVID-19.
This will get much worse before we have widespread availability of a proven safe and effective vaccine.
Before Fall football practice starts over a dozen people on this board will personally know someone (for some it will be family members) who will have have either died or at least spent time in ICU from COVID-19.
This will get much worse before we have widespread availability of a proven safe and effective vaccine.
So @HacksawDawg do you feel same way about sober drivers being responsible for “protecting themselves” from irresponsible, drunk drivers?
Or do you believe law abiding but vulnerable people should responsible for “protecting themselves” from violent crime by avoiding going out in public if violent crime is high.
Should individuals be the sole ones required to protect themselves from those harboring and spreading potentially lethal pathogens, or should the govt or larger organizations bear/share some responsibility?
Bad take.
In our house we have 3 kids and an elder (do not call her elderly!) who is upper 60s. Otherwise in good health but I do have questions in my mind about what we might be able to do to help her stay healthy if this becomes community-wide infection (some seem to say this is a foregone conclusion, and maybe it is, but I have read where other infections were predicted to be pandemics but stopped short of that - perhaps that happens here).
Perhaps you are right, but I just spent a minute researching this because one of my children is slated for an overseas trip into a underdeveloped area. Reading JAMA, CDC, Imperial College of London, and other underlying research documents, I came away reassured that the risk is not great for my son at all.
The information appears different for older with underlying conditions at this stage, but of note in one of the studies I read, the death rate appeared to be plummeting in China across all age brackets (which really just means the older age brackets because that is where both the infection rate and mortality rates appeared highly clustered).
I also understand what you are saying about people will have some personal touchpoint on this, but 10-12 people (out of the large number of people here) knowing someone who may have critical reaction to the virus may not be as large a number as it might seem.
*As of right now*, the situation is serious for older people who are infected and have underlying conditions (mortality rate of 10% or more). The overall infection rate and mortality rate falls precipitously in all other categories.
The proper response *seems* concern, reasonable precautions, but avoiding overreaction that can cause more harm than good and would inflict needless economic / societal damage (for example, the report above of a school system offering ridiculous prices to buy hand sanitizer for a school of children when the disease is almost completely skipping the youngest folks and there have been zero fatalities in the world among the young - that sanitizer resource needs to be focused on the older populations / care centers).
Thanks for reporting that.
Humans panic / succumb to fear. It is what we do. Hopefully facts and reason will penetrate the noise and we will make good decisions.
Our summer temps should help big time against COVID-19.
You, me, nor anyone you know or will meet will come within a country mile of contracting Corona virus. That entire Publix could have sneezed directly into your mouth and you still wouldn't have contracted it.
They’re not shutting down schools to save the lives of the kids but I think you know that. Preventing let’s say 500 potential cases per school, even if probably not going to be deadly or detrimental to the carrier, probably bodes well for the most susceptible of our population whether it’s teachers at the schools or grandparents, neighbors, friends, fellow parishioners, etc....
Not to belabor the point but no your son is not at risk, it’s your “elder” that lives with you who is if he becomes a carrier. Or any other person who comes in contact who is in the higher age group.
I do not want to ignore what any decision-maker does as that woudl be foolish. I also do not necessarily attach significance even to businesses making a certain decision. While businesses should be more rational in their decision-making, they are not always so (herd mentality can overcome anyone).
One key decision-maker can make a decision that then becomes a quick trend. Because others later agree with that original decision, their cumulative decisions make it look like everyone researched it and came to the same conclusion when sometimes they were all just relying on the person before them and following the trend - which takes it all back to the first key decision-maker.
Fear of legal liability also drives a lot of decisions into "err on the side of caution" territory. The potential for a future lawsuit drives a *lot* of business activity.
Governments drive a lot of these decisions from the top as well, and they are not necessarily rational either.
For example, I was in a discussion two days ago within our government about COVID-19. A decision had been issued to cut travel to a long-planned event that does not involve the populations most at-risk. It is an important event. The government agency involved issued a decision "cut travel to this event by 25%".
I sat back and could not make sense of that. If there is a risk of COVID-19 spread at the event, then cancel the event. If there is not a risk, then let everyone come.
The decision smacked of "look like we are doing something about COVID-19".
I have been involved in making COVID-19 decisions (or an informed spectator to it) in three different realms now in the last week: family, government and business. I absolutely feel the power of trend decisions / "erring on the side of caution" pulling at me in these decision processes.
It is far easier to just defer to what others are doing rather than do individual research and make an independent decision. At least I have the protection of "I followed prevailing decision trends" if something goes wrong.
A quick excerpt from a JAMA study I read this week, on fatality rates: "This translates to a current crude CFR (case fatality rate) of 2.6%. However, the total number of COVID-19 cases is likely higher due to inherent difficulties in identifying and counting mild and asymptomatic cases. Furthermore, the still-insufficient testing capacity for COVID-19 in China means that many suspected and clinically diagnosed cases are not yet counted in the denominator. This uncertainty in the CFR may be reflected by the important difference between the CFR in Hubei (2.9%) compared with outside Hubei (0.4%)."
That one paragraph alone made me stand up and take note. We could be well overstating the overall risk of this virus to the population at large. Subsequent research by Imperial College of London appeared to agree with that view.
Patience and calm are not required when things are smooth, but exactly for a time like this when panic and herd mentality are powerful temptations...
So it may not be a large risk to your child, but what about when your child brings it back to you, their grandparents, or others they are in close contact with upon return who are at a greater risk?
Responding to both your posts...
I strongly suspect schools have been shut down because they *do* think the virus is a threat to the young. That seems like a reasonable concern since apparently most respiratory viruses like this do affect the young, but so far this one is curiously almost completely sparing younger populations.
Not only have there been zero fatalities for 9 and under in the world, the overall infection rate is far lower for the young (to the extent it has been captured accurately for any population).
A Journal of American Medical Association study on the first 72,314 cases in China found this (read this carefully - it is eye-popping IMO):
"Most case patients were 30 to 79 years of age (87%), 1% were aged 9 years or younger, 1% were aged 10 to 19 years, and 3% were age 80 years or older."
Only *two percent* of all COVID-19 cases in the first 72,314 cases were among 19 and younger (the school-age population). Among that group, almost no fatalities and confirmed zero fatalities in 9 and under.
So does it actually make sense to cancel school when not only are children not suffering fatalities but are almost not getting the virus at all based on research done to this point?
When you close schools, you definitively incur a societal cost on the other hand. On a macro scale, it is going to cause economic disruption - some economists say it almost guarantees recession. It is also going to increase fear-based decision-making with all its hidden costs. On a micro scale, it is going to inflict economic pain on families that now have to be care-giver to children suddenly at home on an unplanned-basis.
Healthy economies and economically-healthy families are also more physically healthy. There will almost certainly be other adverse health outcomes in some ways from choosing this level of societal and economic disruption.
Is it justified to still do that in light of growing research? Maybe it is. However, the decisions are not as clear-cut as it seems. Lots of gray areas and the folks making these decisions are surrounded by people pulling them different directions, unfairly criticizing them, or sometimes just outright engaged in panic.
With respect, I am not endangering you, my family, or my community by deciding it is ok for my child to engage in this activity because my child is highly unlikely to become a carrier of this virus in any way.
Per JAMA, less than 2% of all of the first 75,000 cases were in the 19 and younger age bracket (and there are still less than 100,000 known cases in the world so that is a big sample). That is "infected at all", not death rate. Virtually zero deaths in the entire world among the young, but more importantly they are simply not diagnosing many people 19 and under with this virus in any way.
This is just now getting into the mainstream press. Here is an article on it that ran two days ago.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/he...sparing-children-puzzling-experts/ar-BB10HTgM
I am not putting anyone at risk - they are adults who are responsible for their own care.
What we need is for people to stop telling other people how to live the lives. Its my life, I will live it as I damn well choose.
The simple fact that it irritates people like you tells me that what I am doing is correct.
If you don't like it, block me - otherwise shut the hell up and move on.
I will NEVER bow to pressure from random individuals who I don't know or respect - for any reason, ever.
All viruses have a latent period in which the patient is infectious but has not yet had symptoms. The period is usually around 10-14 days. Many a virus has caused worldwide epidemic but mutates to a form that is less virulent. Most likely it will play itself out. Many flu strains have been more lethal over this time period. I don't mean to downplay this but hysteria is premature if not altogether misplaced,at least to this point.
You infecting your own parent or grand parent could be as simple as hanging out with them for dinner, leaving with a hug, a hand shake. I find it disturbing you don’t appear to GAS about them, but it doesn’t affect me, so I am not really bothered by your careless defiance.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
NonDawg As much as I enjoyed the music of the 1960s, the music of the….
- Latest: Dawgsontop91
-
-
