4 ms·

Given the ongoing statistics coming out of South Korea (which I'd suggest are the most accurate) where only one person under 50 has died. It seems that these s

Given the ongoing statistics coming out of South Korea (which I'd suggest are the most accurate) where only one person under 50 has died. It seems that these safeguards would be best spent around those aged 60+ and perhaps those 50+ with other health issues. Those who are younger seem to be mildly affected for the most part and could go on with their lives as long as they didn't interact with the older population.

dominotw 7y ago
> as long as they didn't interact with the older population. what about virus hanging on to surfaces for like 3 days
tomerico 7y ago
That was the UK proposal which the public pressured against.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Deaths are all fine and good, but do you know statistics on hospitalizations for the under 50 crowd? Those are the resources that are important - even if the under 50 doesn't die from it but requires hospitalization that's both a resource that can't be used by the above 50's, as well as a possible death if there isn't a bed for them.
- cvlasdkv 7y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-... A significant number in my opinion. "Young" people are acting not only selfishly, but stupidly.
- bgentry 7y ago
  Per the CDC, 20% of hospitalizations are from people aged 20-44. Another 20% are 45-54: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-...
  - paulmd 7y ago
    Yeah, but you have to remember, people 20-44 make up more something like 37% of the population. So that actually makes those age groups pretty unlikely to be hospitalized. Around half the chance relative to their share of the population. https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-state/demographic-statistics-342 https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-stat... In contrast you look at age >=65, they make up 12.4% of the population, 31% of cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm It is kind of funny how desparate some boomers are to push "this virus affects you zoomers too!!!" angle, probably as a response to the "boomer remover" memes. Or just a weird boomer "well if we're going to die, we're gonna take you with us!" thing. I guess understandable but generally reflects the hateful ageist attitudes of boomers towards younger generations. The avocado toast mindset. Yes, it's still lethal at 0.1% among younger populations. 0.1% doesn't mean nobody dies, it means very few die. This is a disease that primarily affects older populations. Some people are searching for a reason to hope it'll take their kids too.
- raducu 7y ago
  In Europe, 50% of ICU patients are under 50 or 60 years of age, so there.
  - psychlops 7y ago
    Where did you find this data?
- filleduchaos 7y ago
  > as well as a possible death if there isn't a bed for them. _Two_ possible deaths, if/when we get to the point that hospital systems are overwhelmed. "Under-50s survive when they get dedicated medical care and full access to medications/ventilators/etc they might need" is a _very_ different picture from "Under-50s survive without adequate medical care".
- psychlops 7y ago
  I use their daily updated website* for statistics which don't break down age/hospitalization. Deaths will come either by the coronavirus and/or by the poverty created by the extreme social measures suggested by the ongoing mania. I tend to believe the latter will kill more and be longer lasting. * https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030 https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=00...
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    A lot of people have responded here - the ICU rates seem very very high for even the young and healthy - which tells me people are going to die as the beds get swamped. There's already a softening to people's needs in regards to healthcare and the economy - can you imagine the US seriously discussing any form of UBI 3 weeks ago? While I understand it's going to be a tough hole to get out of, the economic levers seem like they'll be easier to adjust, and are adjustable on a longer timeline, than the acute condition of "not enough beds".
    - psychlops 7y ago
      The United States is not necessarily headed down the direction of "not enough beds"* that seems to be fashionable thinking today. There is advance warning and precedent far more information already at hand. * https://www.niskanencenter.org/is-u-s-health-care-well-equipped-for-the-coronavirus/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/is-u-s-health-care-well-equip...
- paulmd 7y ago
  > even if the under 50 doesn't die from it but requires hospitalization that's both a resource that can't be used by the above 50's, Frankly this is a wrongheaded position from a triage perspective. The macro-socially correct answer is that you should prefer the person who still has 40-60 years of life over the person who is going to die in 5 or 10 or 20. It's a very boomer-centric perspective that youngs are somehow "stealing a bed" from a boomer. But that's nothing new from that generation. Really it's the other way around, treating grandma is stealing a bed out from underneath her grandkid and leaving them to die. You may find that crass or distasteful, but that's the reality of triage. You don't do triage until you don't have enough medical resources to go around, but then you have to make choices. In Italy, they won't admit 70+'s to a hospital at all. That's how triage works. That's the correct way for triage to work. It's harsh but true.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    I understand triage, but triage is only triage because it has to be - if we can prevent that from happening we should. That's my point. Let's try as much as possible to prevent these life or death scenarios from occurring. For young people to act in a way that will get us into a triage situation is an incredibly selfish act that is preventable.
    - paulmd 7y ago
      We're going to be in a triage situation regardless. Yes, people shouldn't be doing stupid things that increase risk, but is it the cause of the problem, would not doing it fix the problem? No. Singling out particular groups of people for doing stupid things at one point in time isn't really fair. There are olds who keep going to church as well, they have just as much culpability here. But it's much more popular to point the news cameras at some kids on spring break than a church packed shoulder to shoulder with boomers. That generation makes a point of shitting on zoomers every chance they get, and if you point it out they cry about ageism as if that's not exactly what they were doing themselves. It's "avocado toast" playing out all over again. (in all of these cases, I think the states are rightfully clamping down on what's allowable. My parents spent the last two days whining at me that their reservation at a florida state park got cancelled. So that spring break thing probably won't repeat. And the maximum size for a public gathering is coming down rapidly... states were setting limits like 250 a week or so ago, now that number is 50 and some states are going to 5 or 10. This problem is basically solving itself. But are you being ageist about it by singling out zoomers as being some unique problem here? Yes, absolutely.)

dominotw 7y ago

> as long as they didn't interact with the older population. what about virus hanging on to surfaces for like 3 days

tomerico 7y ago

That was the UK proposal which the public pressured against.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

Deaths are all fine and good, but do you know statistics on hospitalizations for the under 50 crowd? Those are the resources that are important - even if the under 50 doesn't die from it but requires hospitalization that's both a resource that can't be used by the above 50's, as well as a possible death if there isn't a bed for them.

cvlasdkv 7y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-... A significant number in my opinion. "Young" people are acting not only selfishly, but stupidly.
bgentry 7y ago
Per the CDC, 20% of hospitalizations are from people aged 20-44. Another 20% are 45-54: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-...
- paulmd 7y ago
  Yeah, but you have to remember, people 20-44 make up more something like 37% of the population. So that actually makes those age groups pretty unlikely to be hospitalized. Around half the chance relative to their share of the population. https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-state/demographic-statistics-342 https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-stat... In contrast you look at age >=65, they make up 12.4% of the population, 31% of cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm It is kind of funny how desparate some boomers are to push "this virus affects you zoomers too!!!" angle, probably as a response to the "boomer remover" memes. Or just a weird boomer "well if we're going to die, we're gonna take you with us!" thing. I guess understandable but generally reflects the hateful ageist attitudes of boomers towards younger generations. The avocado toast mindset. Yes, it's still lethal at 0.1% among younger populations. 0.1% doesn't mean nobody dies, it means very few die. This is a disease that primarily affects older populations. Some people are searching for a reason to hope it'll take their kids too.
raducu 7y ago
In Europe, 50% of ICU patients are under 50 or 60 years of age, so there.
- psychlops 7y ago
  Where did you find this data?
filleduchaos 7y ago
> as well as a possible death if there isn't a bed for them. _Two_ possible deaths, if/when we get to the point that hospital systems are overwhelmed. "Under-50s survive when they get dedicated medical care and full access to medications/ventilators/etc they might need" is a _very_ different picture from "Under-50s survive without adequate medical care".
psychlops 7y ago
I use their daily updated website* for statistics which don't break down age/hospitalization. Deaths will come either by the coronavirus and/or by the poverty created by the extreme social measures suggested by the ongoing mania. I tend to believe the latter will kill more and be longer lasting. * https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030 https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=00...
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  A lot of people have responded here - the ICU rates seem very very high for even the young and healthy - which tells me people are going to die as the beds get swamped. There's already a softening to people's needs in regards to healthcare and the economy - can you imagine the US seriously discussing any form of UBI 3 weeks ago? While I understand it's going to be a tough hole to get out of, the economic levers seem like they'll be easier to adjust, and are adjustable on a longer timeline, than the acute condition of "not enough beds".
  - psychlops 7y ago
    The United States is not necessarily headed down the direction of "not enough beds"* that seems to be fashionable thinking today. There is advance warning and precedent far more information already at hand. * https://www.niskanencenter.org/is-u-s-health-care-well-equipped-for-the-coronavirus/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/is-u-s-health-care-well-equip...
paulmd 7y ago
> even if the under 50 doesn't die from it but requires hospitalization that's both a resource that can't be used by the above 50's, Frankly this is a wrongheaded position from a triage perspective. The macro-socially correct answer is that you should prefer the person who still has 40-60 years of life over the person who is going to die in 5 or 10 or 20. It's a very boomer-centric perspective that youngs are somehow "stealing a bed" from a boomer. But that's nothing new from that generation. Really it's the other way around, treating grandma is stealing a bed out from underneath her grandkid and leaving them to die. You may find that crass or distasteful, but that's the reality of triage. You don't do triage until you don't have enough medical resources to go around, but then you have to make choices. In Italy, they won't admit 70+'s to a hospital at all. That's how triage works. That's the correct way for triage to work. It's harsh but true.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  I understand triage, but triage is only triage because it has to be - if we can prevent that from happening we should. That's my point. Let's try as much as possible to prevent these life or death scenarios from occurring. For young people to act in a way that will get us into a triage situation is an incredibly selfish act that is preventable.
  - paulmd 7y ago
    We're going to be in a triage situation regardless. Yes, people shouldn't be doing stupid things that increase risk, but is it the cause of the problem, would not doing it fix the problem? No. Singling out particular groups of people for doing stupid things at one point in time isn't really fair. There are olds who keep going to church as well, they have just as much culpability here. But it's much more popular to point the news cameras at some kids on spring break than a church packed shoulder to shoulder with boomers. That generation makes a point of shitting on zoomers every chance they get, and if you point it out they cry about ageism as if that's not exactly what they were doing themselves. It's "avocado toast" playing out all over again. (in all of these cases, I think the states are rightfully clamping down on what's allowable. My parents spent the last two days whining at me that their reservation at a florida state park got cancelled. So that spring break thing probably won't repeat. And the maximum size for a public gathering is coming down rapidly... states were setting limits like 250 a week or so ago, now that number is 50 and some states are going to 5 or 10. This problem is basically solving itself. But are you being ageist about it by singling out zoomers as being some unique problem here? Yes, absolutely.)