That would be 60+ with underlying health problems, or 70+. The former is me.
COVID-19 aka 2019 (and 2020) Novel Coronavirus
- Thread starter cwerdna
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
That would be 60+ with underlying health problems, or 70+. The former is me.
Totally agree. What it is now and what it will eventually be are 2 different things. Mortality numbers right now are all over the place. There is no scenario IMO where 654K people die from this. Mentally some people have already checked out. Toilet paper here in Australia as well as the rest of the world is becoming hard to buy.
Again, perspective people. We will get through this. But everyone needs to do what they think they need to do but "hunkering down" is no way to go through life.
Again, perspective people. We will get through this. But everyone needs to do what they think they need to do but "hunkering down" is no way to go through life.
cwerdna said:
It is, however, the way to get through a pandemic. You kind of remind me of the guy who, when told to self-quarantine while awaiting test results,went to a college mixer instead. Denial is also a human instinct.
Don't infect anyone.
WetEV
Well-known member
FLWdowneykp said:
Ever been through a hurricane? Blizzard? Life has both good days and days where you better "hunker down". Pay attention.downeykp said:
Yet buying 200 rolls of TP is just silly. As is cutting interest rates.
WetEV
Well-known member
cwerdna said:
There is a range of possibility, and focusing on one outcome isn't useful for understanding the risk.
Medical care matters, and about 5% of cases need medical intervention to survive. So suppose that 40% of the population have Covid19 at the same time. Then that 5% percent of cases would need ICU type care at the same time. There is no where close to that number of just plain hospital beds, not to mention some are needed for heart attacks, cancer, accidents and such. So then likely the death rate would be more like 6% than 1%, as sick people wait in the cold rain outside hospitals for a bed to free up. Like happened at the peak in Wuhan city. I can't find an icon that looks sad enough.
Oh, numbers. 331 million * 40% * 5% = 6.6 million dead in the US.Notice that the worst case requires many people to just not "hunker down" at all.
On the other hand, there are a lot of ways this could be a lot better. If we can manage to get the growth rate of infection down to near zero, and we develop a vaccine in a year and a bit, the total deaths might be a less than the annual flu. Look at this would take. To remove places where spread is more likely, every bar, club and restaurant would need to be closed. Takeout or delivery only. Cruise ships shutdown. Travel restricted.
Reality is probably someplace in the middle.
jlv
Well-known member
Sorry to hear about your father's passing.mwalsh said:
We have a trip to Death Valley planned for this month, with us flying into Las Vegas. Our plane tickets aren't refundable, but we're close to canceling for similar reasons. I've a weakened immune system and I often pick up anything around me.
I was in a doctor's office this morning and at the end of the consultation (which was via lab equipment and otherwise none physical) he held out his hand. "I'm not shaking hands right now" says I "what with Coronavirus and whatnot". He said "Oh, right", but to me it seemed like he was a bit offended. Which I thought was a little weird under the circumstances, especially for a doctor.
My big problem is touching my face. Lots of face and eye rubbing, along with simply using an elbow on the desk and my palm as a chin rest. In my mind I do it, way more than the average person. Tough thing to reign in after almost 60 years on the planet.
My big problem is touching my face. Lots of face and eye rubbing, along with simply using an elbow on the desk and my palm as a chin rest. In my mind I do it, way more than the average person. Tough thing to reign in after almost 60 years on the planet.
cwerdna
Well-known member
Re: hospital beds, when I last checked, it seemed like there are just under 1 million hospital beds in the US. That would only be enough to accommodate 0.3% of the US population. If 1% of the US population required hospitalization, we'd need ~3.27 million hospital beds.
You need to make just two changes: don't touch anything until your hands have been sterilized with alcohol, and do a super-good job (with alcohol) whenever you wash your hands. Then you won't have a problem with touching your face. The biggest problem with public exposure, IMO, is the fact that your eyes can be the infection point. If someone 6' away coughs right at you, turn away before 1 second has elapsed, to keep the stream of droplets from hitting your eyes. At some point you'll see ski-type goggles joining face masks on healthy people in public...
danrjones
Well-known member
Some of my coworkers and myself were debating who will pay if you are forced to take a test. If the government comes along at some point and forces you to take a test, should not they pay? And what if you refuse to take the test because it's clear YOU are going to pay? And people without insurance?
Perhaps proof how messed up our health system is in this country.
Perhaps proof how messed up our health system is in this country.
I doubt that people will be forced to pay cash. There are moves underway to make sure that both private insurance and medicare will cover the cost. I assume that Medicaid already does.
danrjones
Well-known member
Yes but with or without a copay ?
If your insurance decides you have to pay 20%, per your standard plan for "procedures", can you refuse?
And if the gov decides to pick up the tab for mass testing, is that not a nod to socialized health care? Wouldn't the proper conservative mantra be to let people refuse testing, but also if they cannot afford care, let them die on the curb?
The irony I see in my life is that 50% say they do not want the government in their lives, or more specifically health care. But then a hurricane or earthquake or pandemic comes along, and they all want government help.
I've always found it odd people expect government to save you in a fire or accident. But heartattack or cancer? Screw you. You are on your own.
If your insurance decides you have to pay 20%, per your standard plan for "procedures", can you refuse?
And if the gov decides to pick up the tab for mass testing, is that not a nod to socialized health care? Wouldn't the proper conservative mantra be to let people refuse testing, but also if they cannot afford care, let them die on the curb?
The irony I see in my life is that 50% say they do not want the government in their lives, or more specifically health care. But then a hurricane or earthquake or pandemic comes along, and they all want government help.
I've always found it odd people expect government to save you in a fire or accident. But heartattack or cancer? Screw you. You are on your own.
WetEV
Well-known member
danrjones said:
I see a realistic philosophical difference between an infectious disease and degenerative diseases.
If I have a heart attack, there is little danger to you or anyone else.
If I have covid19, ebola, TB, measles, flu, mumps, polio, smallpox, and so on, these are a danger to not only me, but to you and everyone else. Defending you is defending me. ... aka "The Common Defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
cwerdna
Well-known member
Facebook tells Bay Area employees to stay home and cancel any trips amid coronavirus outbreak
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/facebook-tells-bay-area-employees-to-stay-home-amid-coronavirus-outbreak.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/facebook-tells-bay-area-employees-to-stay-home-amid-coronavirus-outbreak.html
danrjones
Well-known member
That arguement makes sense but there are plenty of examples where that doesn't fit.
If my house is rural, the firefighters still respond. If you are in an a solitary accident, they still cut you out.
Plus cancer, heart disease, etc kill far more americans than most infectious disease. Dead Americans are still dead whether its infectious or not. And better health care leads to better economics.
Our current system essentially says the poor are less deserving of health care. Indeed it puts a price on human life.
Anyway the real question here is why tax payers should foot the bill for something that has killed 10 or 20 Americans but not for something that kills millions. I've already seen conservatives squirming in interviews. Probably because they know the government needs to respond, but that by doing so it undermines their whole philosophy in and of health care. VP staffers couldn't even answer a simple question of the uninsured.
I can tell you if I was uninsured and facing a huge bill for mandatory testing, I tell Pence to stick the test where the sun doesn't shine.
If my house is rural, the firefighters still respond. If you are in an a solitary accident, they still cut you out.
Plus cancer, heart disease, etc kill far more americans than most infectious disease. Dead Americans are still dead whether its infectious or not. And better health care leads to better economics.
Our current system essentially says the poor are less deserving of health care. Indeed it puts a price on human life.
Anyway the real question here is why tax payers should foot the bill for something that has killed 10 or 20 Americans but not for something that kills millions. I've already seen conservatives squirming in interviews. Probably because they know the government needs to respond, but that by doing so it undermines their whole philosophy in and of health care. VP staffers couldn't even answer a simple question of the uninsured.
I can tell you if I was uninsured and facing a huge bill for mandatory testing, I tell Pence to stick the test where the sun doesn't shine.
goldbrick
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
I saw someone in that getup about 3 days ago locally. My first instinct was that he looked like he was coming in to rob the place....
WetEV
Well-known member
Because Covid19 has the potential to kill millions of Americans this year. Nightly news showing sick people waiting in line in the rain outside a hospital for a bed isn't going to go over very well.danrjones said:
We better not get this one wrong. A lot is at stake. The USA has flubbed up so far.
South Korea is doing far better at testing than the USA. If the USA had the same ratio of deaths:cases as South Korea, the USA would have 2042 cases. The USA's confirmed case total is 226. I point out I'm abusing statistics, as the ratio between deaths:cases isn't constant over an epidemic. Yet the general answer is likely close to that.
Modeling suggests the USA probably has total cases in the high hundreds to low thousands. And doubling every week or so. The USA better get up to speed double quick pronto.
danrjones
Well-known member
Heart desiese and cancer dont have the potential to kill millions. They DO kill over a million each year.
I'm not suggesting the responce to this shouldn't be serious. Of course it should be, just as everything else should be. But as the current admin knows nothing about health care, of course they were not prepared. I was quite serious about a Pence aid walking out when a reporter asked about the uninsured. It left you with the feeling that the unisured arent important. Expendable?
I'm not suggesting the responce to this shouldn't be serious. Of course it should be, just as everything else should be. But as the current admin knows nothing about health care, of course they were not prepared. I was quite serious about a Pence aid walking out when a reporter asked about the uninsured. It left you with the feeling that the unisured arent important. Expendable?
