COVID-19

[Eleven]

44 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Stating what is quoted: "(t)he overwhelming majority" aren't at significant risk of death is what makes what he says a fact.  For the overwhelming majority of people in this country, based on the data we have at present, this virus appears to be about as lethal as is the flu.  We are getting data from antibody testing that is indicating more people have been exposed to the virus than was originally reported because we had no way to know how large the asymptomatic population was/is.  That would move the mortality rate for all individuals exposed to the virus down from slightly over 1% to less than 0.5% possibly as low as 0.1%  This is very much in line with the mortality rates from the flu.  And, as treatment methods/ options improve, those numbers WILL improve more.  If this virus isn't lethal to 90%, 99%, or 99.9% of the population (take your pick), then it isn't lethal to the overwhelming majority of the population.

For at risk individuals, such as PA who has described himself as being, there IS apparently significant risk.  Which stinks.  Our medical and research personnel need to find and are finding ways to reduce their risk.  But none of that makes the statement "The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19" false.  You seem to be viewing this through an emotional lens.  (One of your initial arguments was that a decade from now this could come back and kill people after having lain dormant.  Or it could combine with a bacteria at that point.  How many other viruses that indicate similarly to the flu have their disease follow that path?  What percentage of total viruses or more specifically corona viruses do those make up.  Lowering the 99% of people that this does not constitute a significant risk of dying to even by an order of magnitude so it's 90% does not now make it a significant risk to an "overwhelming majority" of the population.  (And pretty sure that should you do the math, it won't even be that much.  But for sake of discussion we can say it would be.) 

Your backing your view up by use of a subjective subject (which almost by definition can't be determined a fact) doesn't help your argument IMHO.   

For the overwhelming majority there isn't a significant risk of death.  That is fact.  For most (or the overwhelming majority), the acute effects are similar to the flu.  The thing that seems (to this layman) to be different about it is that it seems to be about an order of magnitude more contagious than the flu.  Which means for those individuals that are at high risk WE (those that aren't in the high risk pool) need to be more vigilant so that we don't accidentally give someone we care about (or, for that matter, even someone we don't) an infection that could very well be fatal.  Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.  Emotion makes them appear to be, it would seem.  And, just because it isn't lethal to an overwhelming majority of the population, it can still be lethal to a significant portion of the population.  

I don't know what you did, but I can't possibly be expected to read that.  It's blinding.

Anyway.  I'm not going to debate you, Jerry.

[Taro T]

27 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I don't know what you did, but I can't possibly be expected to read that.  It's blinding.

Anyway.  I'm not going to debate you, Jerry.

:huh:

Alrighty, George.

[Wyldnwoody44]

In the end, this is going to be on par with a nasty flu season, and it will be annoying. 

I can't wait for the next shutdown in response to the rhinovrus, global warming or because the organic store is out of tofu. 

[Eleven]

44 minutes ago, Taro T said:

:huh:

Alrighty, George.

The text is white on black.  I literally (in the old sense, not the trendy sense) cannot read it.

[Brawndo]

16 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

In the end, this is going to be on par with a nasty flu season, and it will be annoying. 

I can't wait for the next shutdown in response to the rhinovrus, global warming or because the organic store is out of tofu. 

Nope. The worst flu season in the past decade was the 2017-18 with an estimated 61,000 deaths per the CDC. 

In two months the total number of deaths surpassed 50,000 from COVID with the country on a lockdown.

Working at St Joes for the past few weeks, we opened another floor a week  ago, has been eye opening. 

 

 

[Indabuff]

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

"Significant risk of dying" is the operative term and is quite subjective. Because 95% or 99% of people don't die from an activity doesn't mean the risk isn't significant. It's statistically and personally significant. If there was a 1 in 100 chance you wouldn't return to your home after going grocery shopping tomorrow, you would almost certainly stay home. What if the Sabres announced that 191 people would die in their seats the next time they sell out a game? What would it look like in there? (Softball question, and the sticklers can have fun with my math and terminology.)

Whether it's 1% mortality or 3.5% it's too much of a gamble as far as I'm concerned especially given the contagiousness and underlying health conditions mentioned that may increase the severity of a bout with this *****.  I couldn't even imagine if this was hovering at a 10% mortality rate.  I get that we're just building sample sizes and that the rate is unlikely accurate and highly variable based on lack of testing but I'm not a gambling man. 

And for the record for whatever reason whether it's coincidence or operator error, every time I calculate mortality rate based on numbers provided it's around 2.5ish percent. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Stating what is quoted: "(t)he overwhelming majority" aren't at significant risk of death is what makes what he says a fact.  For the overwhelming majority of people in this country, based on the data we have at present, this virus appears to be about as lethal as is the flu.  We are getting data from antibody testing that is indicating more people have been exposed to the virus than was originally reported because we had no way to know how large the asymptomatic population was/is.  That would move the mortality rate for all individuals exposed to the virus down from slightly over 1% to less than 0.5% possibly as low as 0.1%  This is very much in line with the mortality rates from the flu.  And, as treatment methods/ options improve, those numbers WILL improve more.  If this virus isn't lethal to 90%, 99%, or 99.9% of the population (take your pick), then it isn't lethal to the overwhelming majority of the population.

For at risk individuals, such as PA who has described himself as being, there IS apparently significant risk.  Which stinks.  Our medical and research personnel need to find and are finding ways to reduce their risk.  But none of that makes the statement "The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19" false.  You seem to be viewing this through an emotional lens.  (One of your initial arguments was that a decade from now this could come back and kill people after having lain dormant.  Or it could combine with a bacteria at that point.  How many other viruses that indicate similarly to the flu have their disease follow that path?  What percentage of total viruses or more specifically corona viruses do those make up.  Lowering the 99% of people that this does not constitute a significant risk of dying to even by an order of magnitude so it's 90% does not now make it a significant risk to an "overwhelming majority" of the population.  (And pretty sure that should you do the math, it won't even be that much.  But for sake of discussion we can say it would be.) 

Your backing your view up by use of a subjective subject (which almost by definition can't be determined a fact) doesn't help your argument IMHO.   

For the overwhelming majority there isn't a significant risk of death.  That is fact.  For most (or the overwhelming majority), the acute effects are similar to the flu.  The thing that seems (to this layman) to be different about it is that it seems to be about an order of magnitude more contagious than the flu.  Which means for those individuals that are at high risk WE (those that aren't in the high risk pool) need to be more vigilant so that we don't accidentally give someone we care about (or, for that matter, even someone we don't) an infection that could very well be fatal.  Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.  Emotion makes them appear to be, it would seem.  And, just because it isn't lethal to an overwhelming majority of the population, it can still be lethal to a significant portion of the population.  

But with all the "shutdowns" around the world will make it similar in mortality to the flu. Without those shutdowns this would likely surpass the flu exponentially and you must also consider that. We don't do all this and take these precautions for the flu. Basically we are "skewing" the numbers to make it look similar to the flu by all the precautions being taken. We also don't have large freezer units out back of the hospital for bodies during flu season. I am also hearing that some people wanted to donate their bodies for science testing of the covid-19 and were denied and cremated. This is a terrible thing for patients and their families alike.

[Weave]

I've got an underlying condition that has me a bit freaked out about this whole thing.  Nothing has gotten my dander up in a long time like hearing folks that are Ok with the risks to bring some normalcy back.  It's hit the point where I need to filter what I read/see.  I'm getting downright angry with folks that are OK with the risk. I'm not OK with it. 

[Weave]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Stating what is quoted: "(t)he overwhelming majority" aren't at significant risk of death is what makes what he says a fact.  For the overwhelming majority of people in this country, based on the data we have at present, this virus appears to be about as lethal as is the flu.  We are getting data from antibody testing that is indicating more people have been exposed to the virus than was originally reported because we had no way to know how large the asymptomatic population was/is.  That would move the mortality rate for all individuals exposed to the virus down from slightly over 1% to less than 0.5% possibly as low as 0.1%  This is very much in line with the mortality rates from the flu.  And, as treatment methods/ options improve, those numbers WILL improve more.  If this virus isn't lethal to 90%, 99%, or 99.9% of the population (take your pick), then it isn't lethal to the overwhelming majority of the population.

For at risk individuals, such as PA who has described himself as being, there IS apparently significant risk.  Which stinks.  Our medical and research personnel need to find and are finding ways to reduce their risk.  But none of that makes the statement "The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19" false.  You seem to be viewing this through an emotional lens.  (One of your initial arguments was that a decade from now this could come back and kill people after having lain dormant.  Or it could combine with a bacteria at that point.  How many other viruses that indicate similarly to the flu have their disease follow that path?  What percentage of total viruses or more specifically corona viruses do those make up.  Lowering the 99% of people that this does not constitute a significant risk of dying to even by an order of magnitude so it's 90% does not now make it a significant risk to an "overwhelming majority" of the population.  (And pretty sure that should you do the math, it won't even be that much.  But for sake of discussion we can say it would be.) 

Your backing your view up by use of a subjective subject (which almost by definition can't be determined a fact) doesn't help your argument IMHO.   

For the overwhelming majority there isn't a significant risk of death.  That is fact.  For most (or the overwhelming majority), the acute effects are similar to the flu.  The thing that seems (to this layman) to be different about it is that it seems to be about an order of magnitude more contagious than the flu.  Which means for those individuals that are at high risk WE (those that aren't in the high risk pool) need to be more vigilant so that we don't accidentally give someone we care about (or, for that matter, even someone we don't) an infection that could very well be fatal.  Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.  Emotion makes them appear to be, it would seem.  And, just because it isn't lethal to an overwhelming majority of the population, it can still be lethal to a significant portion of the population.  

From what I understand, the greatest risk factors for the worst of this disease are high blood pressure, obesity, heart issues, and diabetes.  That may not be a majority of people, but it isn't an overwhelming majority that aren't in one of those groups.  That's a ton of folks.

[Zamboni]

Wow ... watching Live PD. And Baton Rouge LA are not doing any social distancing. No masks. No gloves. Unless the police are rummaging thru a car. I’m not just talking about the police Officers. I can understand to a degree as a police officer you can’t always practice that. The general public are not doing anything down there (from my limited viewing so far).It’s a different mindset.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

52 minutes ago, Weave said:

From what I understand, the greatest risk factors for the worst of this disease are high blood pressure, obesity, heart issues, and diabetes.  That may not be a majority of people, but it isn't an overwhelming majority that aren't in one of those groups.  That's a ton of folks.

Lung disorders such as COPD are high risk also.....what concerns me is that I have ALL of these issues and over 60. Am under stay at home Dr's "recommendations" and of course I don't qualify for any help. Still technically employed and not disabled so no unemployment and diability denied....only option was unpaid LOA, been about 5 weeks now. 

[Eleven]

OK.  I've seen a couple of people quote Taro now, and the text still (within the quote) is white on black.  Am I the only one having this problem?   

[Stoner]

5 minutes ago, Eleven said:

OK.  I've seen a couple of people quote Taro now, and the text still (within the quote) is white on black.  Am I the only one having this problem?   

What problem?

[Eleven]

14 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

What problem?

text still (within the quote) is white on black. 

It's right there.  Taro's post appears to me, on my screen, backwards.  It is white on black rather than black on white.  So I cannot read it because it screws with my eyes.

In other words, it looks like this (screenshot of Taro's actual post from my actual computer)

 

 

 

I can't read that.  My eyes won't have it, unfortunately. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Eleven

[Stoner]

23 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Lung disorders such as COPD are high risk also.....what concerns me is that I have ALL of these issues and over 60. Am under stay at home Dr's "recommendations" and of course I don't qualify for any help. Still technically employed and not disabled so no unemployment and diability denied....only option was unpaid LOA, been about 5 weeks now. 

Sorry to hear it. Why no unemployment?

[SwampD]

24 minutes ago, Eleven said:

text still (within the quote) is white on black. 

It's right there.  Taro's post appears to me, on my screen, backwards.  It is white on black rather than black on white.  So I cannot read it because it screws with my eyes.

In other words, it looks like this (screenshot of Taro's actual post from my actual computer)

 

 

 

I can't read that.  My eyes won't have it, unfortunately. 

The dress is white and gold.

[Eleven]

Just now, SwampD said:

The dress is white and gold.

Whatever, Yanny.

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Whatever, Yanny.

Til.

Wish I hadn’t.

[Eleven]

Just now, SwampD said:

Til.

Wish I hadn’t.

Of all people whom I know, I'd think you'd be the most fascinated by it--you're an audio guy.

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Of all people whom I know, I'd think you'd be the most fascinated by it--you're an audio guy.

Ooo. Now I have to go back and listen. I only skimmed a description. 

i remember this. I can hear both.

Edited April 25, 2020 by SwampD

[Marvin]

You might not die, but a mild case that was like having the flu and bronchitis that decreased my lung efficiency by 15-20% is still rougher than a "normal flu".

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Sorry to hear it. Why no unemployment?

Don't qualify for various reasons.....essential employee, still employed, and not Covid positive or symptomatic. My only problem is the high risk factor and it's not considered a reason for unemployment. I even contacted them and another state agency to find out and they told me no. Basically my options are stay at home unpaid or throw myself into the fire. My risk is doubled like some others on here because my wife works at the hospital too and could still bring it home. Then add on the fact I live in an apartment building with 12 units in which 3 other tenants work in nursing homes. One has already had it and I found out after they got out of isolation in home. Just biding my time stressed out waiting.

[Wyldnwoody44]

Diabetes, heart disease, COPD, things we excel at in Merica' 

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

But with all the "shutdowns" around the world will make it similar in mortality to the flu. Without those shutdowns this would likely surpass the flu exponentially and you must also consider that. We don't do all this and take these precautions for the flu. Basically we are "skewing" the numbers to make it look similar to the flu by all the precautions being taken. We also don't have large freezer units out back of the hospital for bodies during flu season. I am also hearing that some people wanted to donate their bodies for science testing of the covid-19 and were denied and cremated. This is a terrible thing for patients and their families alike.

None of that changes the fact that saying 'this won't be fatal for the "overwhelming majority"' is factually correct.  

[Wyldnwoody44]

4 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Nope. The worst flu season in the past decade was the 2017-18 with an estimated 61,000 deaths per the CDC. 

In two months the total number of deaths surpassed 50,000 from COVID with the country on a lockdown.

Working at St Joes for the past few weeks, we opened another floor a week  ago, has been eye opening. 

 

 

I haven't really seen this hit hard at all, and I've done a pretty good job of avoiding most media coverage, so I'm coming at this from a different point of view than most. 

Once this is over, we should grab a beer and I can pick your brain on your thoughts from a medical perspective on this, since you're internal medicine and are def dealing with this being at Joe's.