5 ms·

Not condoning Google but the mortality rate increases with every age bracket and is much lower under 50 years of age. I would assume that the Google office is q

Not condoning Google but the mortality rate increases with every age bracket and is much lower under 50 years of age. I would assume that the Google office is quite young.

capableweb 7y ago
Sure, but as its morality rate is bad in some age brackets, we should protect those people in the age brackets, meaning self-isolating is a good idea to avoid spreading it further.
koheripbal 7y ago
The rate of employees with young children and grandparents is pretty high. What makes you think Google employees only care about themselves? You don't think they (and we) should care about the more vulnerable members of society that they will infect?
- NeutronStar 7y ago
  Young children don't die from this coronavirus tho... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...
- username90 7y ago
  Young children are not at risk, unlike the flu.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    less at risk is not the same as not at risk. At any rate there are children that have immunity problems that as the virus spreads I worry it will effect them - for example MBL deficiency and it's susceptibility to respiratory ailments https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/mannose-binding-lectin-deficiency https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/mannose-binding-lectin-def... https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/191/10/1697/789682 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/191/10/1697/789682
    - ltbarcly3 7y ago
      I think you are taking common idiomatic English and interpreting it as though it is meant to be precise. "Not at risk" does not mean 0 risk, it means negligible risk. For example, if I was standing on a cruise ship, am I at risk for drowning? Not really, it's extremely unlikely that I would drown. Could I drown? For sure, I could fall in the ocean, or in the pool, or pass out into a bowl of soup. Despite the nonzero possibility of drowning, if someone saw me on the cruise ship waiting in line for the buffet and yelled "be careful, you are at risk of drowning" at me, I would think they had lost their mind.
      - Johnny555 7y ago
        But as long as you just keep standing on the deck, you're not going to drown. But even though the risk of infection is low, I wouldn't say that a child is "not at risk" of contracting the disease if their dad catches it at work and brings it home. I'd say that he's "at low risk", not "no risk".
        ltbarcly3 7y ago
        Again, not at risk means not at risk. "At risk" means more than average risk. Not at risk means the opposite in common usage, it means much below average. Nobody said anything about "no risk". "low risk" and "not at risk" mean exactly the same thing. https://www.macmillanthesaurus.com/at-risk https://www.macmillanthesaurus.com/at-risk
      - wisty 7y ago
        It seems like children are 10 times less likely to get it, though that's very rubbery numbers (based on children being 2% of cases in China despite being about 20% of the population, not that I really trust the numbers are accurate). A 0.1% chance of death (or even 0.01%) is still concerning.
        bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        The problem with MBL deficiency which can be a problem among younger children is that it makes you more susceptible to catching respiratory ailments and suffering worse from them. So as this is still in early stages we might not know how it effects children with MBL deficiency, it might be very bad for them.
  - watwut 7y ago
    Young children are quite touchy among peers and great at spreading disease to their families. Which means toward peers grand parents.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    So a paper has quoted 0 deaths for under 10 year olds, and you interpret that to mean that children are immune? Planes crash, the Airbus A380 has suffered 0 crashes, so would you interpret this to mean the A380 cannot crash?
    - ltbarcly3 7y ago
      I think a problem with this analogy is you are comparing children not dying from a disease they do have to an airplane which doesn't have the problem you mention. Lets square up the analogy. So there are 0 deaths for children that get coronavirus, and about 1/5 of the cases have been among children. Planes crash, and out of all the planes that have crashed about 1/5 of the passengers were children, if 0 of the children died would you interpret this to mean children can't die in plane crashes? And yes, basically I would interpret it that way if it were true. Ok, maybe I can make it closer to your analogy: There were 0 deaths for children that get caronavirus, maybe you think children are much less likely than adults to die if infected? Planes crash, if the A380 has never crashed despite millions and millions of miles in service, would you interpret that to mean that an A380 is much less likely to crash than other plane models that have flown a similar number of miles and had a bunch of crashes? Again, yes, that is just how statistics work.
  - sitkack 7y ago
    Those children's grandparents are at risk, are you saying it is ok to cause 2nd and 3rd order infections?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    They have zero fatalities so far. But don't for one second believe that having double pneumonia is a walk in the park and the lung tissue scars will be with you for life. I had pneumonia when I was 24 and to this day I have my reminders of that event. You end up with reduced lung capacity, scarring and you'll be more vulnerable to re-infection.
odorousrex 7y ago
It's a good thing none of those young google employees have parents, siblings, or friends over the age of 50! /s (in case it isn't obvious)
- mindslight 7y ago
  Sure, but they don't contribute to Google. (/s)
davidw 7y ago
See my comment elsewhere about the otherwise healthy, young guy on a respirator.
mk89 7y ago
I think if you have a low immune system also doesn't help. And all it takes is that you get a cold, which is unfortunately the worst period now, your body is already weak, and this virus as well, and it might get dangerous. This story of the "only old people" is just to keep the majority of the population calm, which is good. However, it can happen to any of us to be in a bad period and this sh happens.
danso 7y ago
But mortality isn’t the only concern. The virus can non-fatally damage the respiratory system. More importantly, there’s the problem of people passing it on to their older friends and family members
- Johnny555 7y ago
  And there's evidence that someone can be reinfected after they recover, so this isn't like a flu where once you catch that strain, you gain immunity, you can get covid-19 multiple times. And subsequent infections may be worse. So do everything you can to avoid it in the first place -- ideally I'll avoid it until a vaccine is developed. (fingers crossed that a vaccine really will be developed)
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    Apparently some viruses go into remission then come back. I'm not sure if they know if they caught it a second time, or if they "recovered" but really didn't. Either angle has some terrible implications. Hopefully it's rare.
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      Yeah, that's another theory, that it's "bi-phasic" and comes out of remission, but there's less evidence for that than for "you can get infected twice".
  - pps 7y ago
    There is no evidence for reinfection, people assumed it was that, but according to specialists it's more likely it works the same as with other viruses "THREAD/1: We saw now several reports of reinfection and I wanted to talk a little about that. While immunity induced by SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and human CoVs is not very long lived, an immune response is typically induced and antibodies persist for 1-3 years." "2) Now, there is evidence that people with COVID19 mount an immune response (e.g. https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.20.20025841v1 https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.20.20025841v1). That makes re-infection, especially short-term extremely unlikely. What is more likely is, that the patient is still shedding virus but some of the tests were negative." "3) Follow up tests can turn positive after a few negative tests, e.g. because sampling was better. Also, and this is a very important point, just because somebody still tests positive in a nucleic acid based test, does not mean they are still shedding infectious virus." "4) E.g. Measles RNA can be detected for months in patients, long after infectious virus shedding has stopped. This is also the case for other viruses. And I think this is the most likely scenario here." https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1233338746789036032 https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/12333387467890360...
bespokedevelopr 7y ago
The tech industry's age discrimination is really paying off well it seems.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
onceUponADime 7y ago
And those young people dont have parents?
FalconSensei 7y ago
Unless you have cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease or hypertension... Then the mortality rates can be up to 10% (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...)

Not condoning Google but the mortality rate increases with every age bracket and is much lower under 50 years of age. I would assume that the Google office is quite young.

capableweb 7y ago

Sure, but as its morality rate is bad in some age brackets, we should protect those people in the age brackets, meaning self-isolating is a good idea to avoid spreading it further.

koheripbal 7y ago

The rate of employees with young children and grandparents is pretty high. What makes you think Google employees only care about themselves? You don't think they (and we) should care about the more vulnerable members of society that they will infect?

NeutronStar 7y ago
Young children don't die from this coronavirus tho... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...
username90 7y ago
Young children are not at risk, unlike the flu.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  less at risk is not the same as not at risk. At any rate there are children that have immunity problems that as the virus spreads I worry it will effect them - for example MBL deficiency and it's susceptibility to respiratory ailments https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/mannose-binding-lectin-deficiency https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/mannose-binding-lectin-def... https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/191/10/1697/789682 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/191/10/1697/789682
  - ltbarcly3 7y ago
    I think you are taking common idiomatic English and interpreting it as though it is meant to be precise. "Not at risk" does not mean 0 risk, it means negligible risk. For example, if I was standing on a cruise ship, am I at risk for drowning? Not really, it's extremely unlikely that I would drown. Could I drown? For sure, I could fall in the ocean, or in the pool, or pass out into a bowl of soup. Despite the nonzero possibility of drowning, if someone saw me on the cruise ship waiting in line for the buffet and yelled "be careful, you are at risk of drowning" at me, I would think they had lost their mind.
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      But as long as you just keep standing on the deck, you're not going to drown. But even though the risk of infection is low, I wouldn't say that a child is "not at risk" of contracting the disease if their dad catches it at work and brings it home. I'd say that he's "at low risk", not "no risk".
      - ltbarcly3 7y ago
        Again, not at risk means not at risk. "At risk" means more than average risk. Not at risk means the opposite in common usage, it means much below average. Nobody said anything about "no risk". "low risk" and "not at risk" mean exactly the same thing. https://www.macmillanthesaurus.com/at-risk https://www.macmillanthesaurus.com/at-risk
    - wisty 7y ago
      It seems like children are 10 times less likely to get it, though that's very rubbery numbers (based on children being 2% of cases in China despite being about 20% of the population, not that I really trust the numbers are accurate). A 0.1% chance of death (or even 0.01%) is still concerning.
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        The problem with MBL deficiency which can be a problem among younger children is that it makes you more susceptible to catching respiratory ailments and suffering worse from them. So as this is still in early stages we might not know how it effects children with MBL deficiency, it might be very bad for them.
- watwut 7y ago
  Young children are quite touchy among peers and great at spreading disease to their families. Which means toward peers grand parents.
- netsharc 7y ago
  So a paper has quoted 0 deaths for under 10 year olds, and you interpret that to mean that children are immune? Planes crash, the Airbus A380 has suffered 0 crashes, so would you interpret this to mean the A380 cannot crash?
  - ltbarcly3 7y ago
    I think a problem with this analogy is you are comparing children not dying from a disease they do have to an airplane which doesn't have the problem you mention. Lets square up the analogy. So there are 0 deaths for children that get coronavirus, and about 1/5 of the cases have been among children. Planes crash, and out of all the planes that have crashed about 1/5 of the passengers were children, if 0 of the children died would you interpret this to mean children can't die in plane crashes? And yes, basically I would interpret it that way if it were true. Ok, maybe I can make it closer to your analogy: There were 0 deaths for children that get caronavirus, maybe you think children are much less likely than adults to die if infected? Planes crash, if the A380 has never crashed despite millions and millions of miles in service, would you interpret that to mean that an A380 is much less likely to crash than other plane models that have flown a similar number of miles and had a bunch of crashes? Again, yes, that is just how statistics work.
- sitkack 7y ago
  Those children's grandparents are at risk, are you saying it is ok to cause 2nd and 3rd order infections?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  They have zero fatalities so far. But don't for one second believe that having double pneumonia is a walk in the park and the lung tissue scars will be with you for life. I had pneumonia when I was 24 and to this day I have my reminders of that event. You end up with reduced lung capacity, scarring and you'll be more vulnerable to re-infection.

odorousrex 7y ago

It's a good thing none of those young google employees have parents, siblings, or friends over the age of 50! /s (in case it isn't obvious)

mindslight 7y ago
Sure, but they don't contribute to Google. (/s)

davidw 7y ago

See my comment elsewhere about the otherwise healthy, young guy on a respirator.

mk89 7y ago

I think if you have a low immune system also doesn't help. And all it takes is that you get a cold, which is unfortunately the worst period now, your body is already weak, and this virus as well, and it might get dangerous. This story of the "only old people" is just to keep the majority of the population calm, which is good. However, it can happen to any of us to be in a bad period and this sh happens.

danso 7y ago

But mortality isn’t the only concern. The virus can non-fatally damage the respiratory system. More importantly, there’s the problem of people passing it on to their older friends and family members

Johnny555 7y ago
And there's evidence that someone can be reinfected after they recover, so this isn't like a flu where once you catch that strain, you gain immunity, you can get covid-19 multiple times. And subsequent infections may be worse. So do everything you can to avoid it in the first place -- ideally I'll avoid it until a vaccine is developed. (fingers crossed that a vaccine really will be developed)
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  Apparently some viruses go into remission then come back. I'm not sure if they know if they caught it a second time, or if they "recovered" but really didn't. Either angle has some terrible implications. Hopefully it's rare.
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    Yeah, that's another theory, that it's "bi-phasic" and comes out of remission, but there's less evidence for that than for "you can get infected twice".
- pps 7y ago
  There is no evidence for reinfection, people assumed it was that, but according to specialists it's more likely it works the same as with other viruses "THREAD/1: We saw now several reports of reinfection and I wanted to talk a little about that. While immunity induced by SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and human CoVs is not very long lived, an immune response is typically induced and antibodies persist for 1-3 years." "2) Now, there is evidence that people with COVID19 mount an immune response (e.g. https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.20.20025841v1 https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.20.20025841v1). That makes re-infection, especially short-term extremely unlikely. What is more likely is, that the patient is still shedding virus but some of the tests were negative." "3) Follow up tests can turn positive after a few negative tests, e.g. because sampling was better. Also, and this is a very important point, just because somebody still tests positive in a nucleic acid based test, does not mean they are still shedding infectious virus." "4) E.g. Measles RNA can be detected for months in patients, long after infectious virus shedding has stopped. This is also the case for other viruses. And I think this is the most likely scenario here." https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1233338746789036032 https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/12333387467890360...

bespokedevelopr 7y ago

The tech industry's age discrimination is really paying off well it seems.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

onceUponADime 7y ago

And those young people dont have parents?

FalconSensei 7y ago

Unless you have cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease or hypertension... Then the mortality rates can be up to 10% (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...)