Coronavirus - Is it spreading

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Yahwehismywitness
Scholar
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:26 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Coronavirus - Is it spreading

Post #1

Post by Yahwehismywitness »

https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-the ... gets-sick/
Breaking: “Cured� Coronavirus Victims Becoming Sick With Virus Again! Watch Live
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... ve-updates

Americans "Should Prepare For Community Spread," CDC Warns As HHS' Azar Admits US Lacks Mask Stockpile: Live Updates

https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavi ... xpert-says
Coronavirus fits criteria for 'Disease X,' WHO expert says

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Post #51

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to post 50 by Purple Knight]
Excellent points. I don't see socialism as a good alternative though. I'm not sure if you're advocating for that.

The concern about our economic system is a bit off topic but I will say we would not fare better under a socialist economy. If my money is controlled by the government and passed on to others then I will not want to work as hard. There is no incentive. May as well become poor myself just so the government can support me even more.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Post #52

Post by Difflugia »

AgnosticBoy wrote:The concern about our economic system is a bit off topic but I will say we would not fare better under a socialist economy. If my money is controlled by the government and passed on to others then I will not want to work as hard. There is no incentive. May as well become poor myself just so the government can support me even more.
How much of your current work ethic is based on the fear of a lower standard of living? Do you work exactly as hard as you think won't result in your wages being reduced or losing your job altogether?

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Post #53

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Difflugia wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote:The concern about our economic system is a bit off topic but I will say we would not fare better under a socialist economy. If my money is controlled by the government and passed on to others then I will not want to work as hard. There is no incentive. May as well become poor myself just so the government can support me even more.
How much of your current work ethic is based on the fear of a lower standard of living? Do you work exactly as hard as you think won't result in your wages being reduced or losing your job altogether?
Let's stick to the science and logic behind shutting down schools and economies over a virus.😉

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1959 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Post #54

Post by benchwarmer »

AgnosticBoy wrote:
Difflugia wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote:The concern about our economic system is a bit off topic but I will say we would not fare better under a socialist economy. If my money is controlled by the government and passed on to others then I will not want to work as hard. There is no incentive. May as well become poor myself just so the government can support me even more.
How much of your current work ethic is based on the fear of a lower standard of living? Do you work exactly as hard as you think won't result in your wages being reduced or losing your job altogether?
Let's stick to the science and logic behind shutting down schools and economies over a virus.😉
That's pretty easy. Science and logic have shown that this virus is spread by humans in close contact with each other. Limiting contact slows the spread. Leaving things unchecked will result in an exponential increase in infections which will quickly overwhelm hospitals and leave many people to die due to lack of resources. We have hard facts that this is the case. See Italy, soon to be the U.S.

Shutting down schools and economies is certainly brutal, but if we as a global population actually did it immediately right from the start instead of dragging our collective feet, this would likely have been over in a month or two. Instead, we are now likely facing very long term measures just to slow this thing down long enough to develop treatments and vaccines.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #55

Post by Purple Knight »

AgnosticBoy wrote: [Replying to post 50 by Purple Knight]
Excellent points. I don't see socialism as a good alternative though. I'm not sure if you're advocating for that.
No, I'm not. Socialism is just a free market with forced sharing. I see the forced sharing as yet another domino added to the already unstable upper levels, making a bad system worse.

Maybe I'll make a topic in Random Ramblings to answer this.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Post #56

Post by AgnosticBoy »

benchwarmer wrote: That's pretty easy. Science and logic have shown that this virus is spread by humans in close contact with each other. Limiting contact slows the spread.
Limiting contact can slow the spread but lets also bring in two key facts. One fact is that covid19 is not lethal to the majority of the population. Another fact is that people can develop immunity to the virus. Given these two facts, we can say that there is a low risk and high risk population and my approach factors this in. It is absolutely unnecessary to treat both populations the same.

For instance, we shouldn't be worried about the virus being spread or contracted among the low risk group. We should only be focused on preventing the spread to high risk groups. Achieving this doesn't take quarantining both the low risk and high risk population alike, but rather it takes quarantining the high risk crowd until people develop immunity and/or treatments/vaccines. This would also have less of a negative impact on the job market and economy.
benchwarmer wrote:Leaving things unchecked will result in an exponential increase in infections which will quickly overwhelm hospitals and leave many people to die due to lack of resources. We have hard facts that this is the case. See Italy, soon to be the U.S.
Italy has the second largest elderly population in the world (refer to this table). Of course, they would be hit hard because this is the population that covid19 effects the most. The low risk crowd wouldn't require as many hospitalizations, especially critical care, given the fact that the virus doesn't effect them in a severe way.

Low risk= Age 50 and under and without major pre-existing health conditions
High risk= older population and those with underlying chronic health problems
benchwarmer wrote:Shutting down schools and economies is certainly brutal, but if we as a global population actually did it immediately right from the start instead of dragging our collective feet, this would likely have been over in a month or two. Instead, we are now likely facing very long term measures just to slow this thing down long enough to develop treatments and vaccines.
Lets start with the facts:
Since February 12, 4,226 COVID-19 cases were reported in the United States; 31% of cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred among adults aged ≥65 years with the highest percentage of severe outcomes among persons aged ≥85 years. These findings are similar to data from China, which indicated >80% of deaths occurred among persons aged ≥60 years (3). These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19. In contrast, persons aged ≤19 years appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.
Source: CDC

If we gave the low risk population one or two months to develop immunity, rather than hiding behind closed doors, then that would also decrease the spread of infections. This would also help with development of vaccines and help keep our economy going.

As for schools, just look at the stats I posted. Schools should not be closed for some indefinite time.

I would not shut down ANY economy, capitalist or socialist, because of a non-lethal virus. When you ban people from working, ban businesses from operating, ban people from coming outside, then you're going to have a major setback for ANY economy.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1959 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Post #57

Post by benchwarmer »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Lets start with the facts:
Since February 12, 4,226 COVID-19 cases were reported in the United States; 31% of cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred among adults aged ≥65 years with the highest percentage of severe outcomes among persons aged ≥85 years. These findings are similar to data from China, which indicated >80% of deaths occurred among persons aged ≥60 years (3). These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19. In contrast, persons aged ≤19 years appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.
Source: CDC

If we gave the low risk population one or two months to develop immunity, rather than hiding behind closed doors, then that would also decrease the spread of infections. This would also help with development of vaccines and help keep our economy going.

As for schools, just look at the stats I posted. Schools should not be closed for some indefinite time.

I would not shut down ANY economy, capitalist or socialist, because of a non-lethal virus. When you ban people from working, ban businesses from operating, ban people from coming outside, then you're going to have a major setback for ANY economy.

Yes, let's look at the facts. Notice the part you failed to highlight which I did in blue. This altogether means that 20% of people under 65 who contract this will die and 47% of them will require ICU admission, and 55% of them will require hospitalization.

Read that carefully. An aggressive virus that is spreading rapidly will cause at least 55% of ALL adults who contract this to be hospitalized. I don't know how big the hospitals are where you live, but they are not big enough here to handle the load.

Let's also do some rough math.

Current world population: 7.7 billion
Number between 15-65: .65 * 7.53 billion = 5.01 billion
Number who will die if virus spreads to everyone: .20 * 5.01 billion = 1.00 billion

Let's be generous and assume only 50% of people will come into contact with this if we do nothing for this age range: .5 * 1.00 billion = 0.50 billion

Data:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.1564.TO.ZS
https://www.worldometers.info/

I guess somewhere between half a billion to a billion people is no big deal??

Ignoring the numbers for a second, how do you propose to actually define and implement measures for the most vulnerable sector? In many cases, people don't even know if they are in the vulnerable group or not.

Either way, it seems we are about to find out what happens when something like your proposed scenario is tried with Sweden.

https://reason.com/2020/03/25/despite-c ... atherings/

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Post #58

Post by AgnosticBoy »

benchwarmer wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote: Lets start with the facts:
Since February 12, 4,226 COVID-19 cases were reported in the United States; 31% of cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred among adults aged ≥65 years with the highest percentage of severe outcomes among persons aged ≥85 years. These findings are similar to data from China, which indicated >80% of deaths occurred among persons aged ≥60 years (3). These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19. In contrast, persons aged ≤19 years appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.
Source: CDC

If we gave the low risk population one or two months to develop immunity, rather than hiding behind closed doors, then that would also decrease the spread of infections. This would also help with development of vaccines and help keep our economy going.

As for schools, just look at the stats I posted. Schools should not be closed for some indefinite time.

I would not shut down ANY economy, capitalist or socialist, because of a non-lethal virus. When you ban people from working, ban businesses from operating, ban people from coming outside, then you're going to have a major setback for ANY economy.

Yes, let's look at the facts. Notice the part you failed to highlight which I did in blue. This altogether means that 20% of people under 65 who contract this will die and 47% of them will require ICU admission, and 55% of them will require hospitalization.

Read that carefully. An aggressive virus that is spreading rapidly will cause at least 55% of ALL adults who contract this to be hospitalized. I don't know how big the hospitals are where you live, but they are not big enough here to handle the load.
Your reading is incorrect. The percentages for each age range are drawn from the total number of "hospitalizations" and not from the total number of covid19 cases. In the CDC article, only 12% of US COVID19 cases required hospitalization. That's much lower than the "55%" you mentioned. Here's from the same article:

"Among 508 (12%) patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged ≥85 years, 36% were aged 65–84 years, 17% were aged 55–64 years, 18% were 45–54 years, and 20% were aged 20–44 years. Less than 1% of hospitalizations were among persons aged ≤19 years (Figure 2). "

In other words, only 12% of covid19 cases in the US required hospitalization. You can check the math yourself. 508 is 12% of 4,226, with 4,226 being the total number of known covid19 cases in the CDC article I referenced. Based on the excerpt I just posted, about 100 people (which is 20% of the 508 hospitalized) between ages 20 to 44 were hospitalized. Now what percentage is 100 people out of all covid19 cases? Only 2%.

So about 2% of my low risk group required hospitalization. Even a lower percentage dies. That's why I call this group low risk.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1959 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Post #59

Post by benchwarmer »

AgnosticBoy wrote:
benchwarmer wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote: Lets start with the facts:
Since February 12, 4,226 COVID-19 cases were reported in the United States; 31% of cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred among adults aged ≥65 years with the highest percentage of severe outcomes among persons aged ≥85 years. These findings are similar to data from China, which indicated >80% of deaths occurred among persons aged ≥60 years (3). These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19. In contrast, persons aged ≤19 years appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.
Source: CDC

If we gave the low risk population one or two months to develop immunity, rather than hiding behind closed doors, then that would also decrease the spread of infections. This would also help with development of vaccines and help keep our economy going.

As for schools, just look at the stats I posted. Schools should not be closed for some indefinite time.

I would not shut down ANY economy, capitalist or socialist, because of a non-lethal virus. When you ban people from working, ban businesses from operating, ban people from coming outside, then you're going to have a major setback for ANY economy.

Yes, let's look at the facts. Notice the part you failed to highlight which I did in blue. This altogether means that 20% of people under 65 who contract this will die and 47% of them will require ICU admission, and 55% of them will require hospitalization.

Read that carefully. An aggressive virus that is spreading rapidly will cause at least 55% of ALL adults who contract this to be hospitalized. I don't know how big the hospitals are where you live, but they are not big enough here to handle the load.
Your reading is incorrect. The percentages for each age range are drawn from the total number of "hospitalizations" and not from the total number of covid19 cases. In the CDC article, only 12% of US COVID19 cases required hospitalization. That's much lower than the "55%" you mentioned. Here's from the same article:

"Among 508 (12%) patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged ≥85 years, 36% were aged 65–84 years, 17% were aged 55–64 years, 18% were 45–54 years, and 20% were aged 20–44 years. Less than 1% of hospitalizations were among persons aged ≤19 years (Figure 2). "

In other words, only 12% of covid19 cases in the US required hospitalization. You can check the math yourself. 508 is 12% of 4,226, with 4,226 being the total number of known covid19 cases in the CDC article I referenced. Based on the excerpt I just posted, about 100 people (which is 20% of the 508 hospitalized) between ages 20 to 44 were hospitalized. Now what percentage is 100 people out of all covid19 cases? Only 2%.

So about 2% of my low risk group required hospitalization. Even a lower percentage dies. That's why I call this group low risk.
Apologies. I was basing my math on your quote, not on reading the CDC article. Shame on me for not reading the source material :(

Yet, we are still left with the problem of actually carving out and identifying the high risk and low risk groups. Age is not the only factor. Underlying heath conditions (that may or may not be known) are also a problem.

In the end we will find out which countries fared better. Those who locked things down, or those who didn't. I personally think a short term pain would have been the right move. However, this is very hard to implement on a global level. Those countries that didn't lock down early are now faced with a crisis in their hospitals, regardless of the age breakdown.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Post #60

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to post 59 by benchwarmer]

I think of it like this. If only 12% or so of the covid19 cases involve hospitalization, then that means about 80% of the covid19 cases do not require hospitalization. That means that this virus is not deadly to the majority of the people who catch it. My plan eventually stops infections via immunity while yours slows it down while damaging the economy.

It is SCIENCE that tells us people can develop immunity to viruses. And many have recovered. So why not trust science? If you're an atheist that accepts science, esp. if you're 19 years old or younger, why are you afraid of catching this virus? Do you also hide behind closed doors because of the common cold or flu? Or is it the media hype that mostly emphasizes the "deaths" and worse case scenarios that keeps people in hiding?

Here is more on immunity:
Do people who survive the infection become immune to the virus?

The answer is a qualified yes, with some significant unknowns. That’s important for several reasons.

People who are confirmed to be immune could venture from their homes and help shore up the work force until a vaccine becomes available, for example. In particular, health care workers who are known to be immune could continue to care for the severely ill.

Growing immunity in the community also is the way the epidemic ends: With fewer and fewer people to infect, the coronavirus will lose its toehold and even the most vulnerable citizens become more insulated from the threat.

Immunity may also bring an early treatment. Antibodies gathered from the bodies of those who have recovered may be used to aid those struggling with the illness caused by the coronavirus, called Covid-19.
Source: New York Times

Post Reply