9 ms·
Lives will be disrupted either way, lifting restrictions too early will result in more deaths, which is the ultimate disruption of life.
by ivankolev 7y ago
Lives will be disrupted either way, lifting restrictions too early will result in more deaths, which is the ultimate disruption of life.
- pathseeker 7y agoYou'd be surprised how many people are already willing to let the death rate increase. The perception is that this virus mainly wipes out sick people and boomers. If there's one thing millennials hate, it's boomers.
- bpodgursky 7y agoExcept most of the people willing to take the risk ARE the boomers and elderly. The millenials are the ones sheltering in place and posting about it on Twitter.
- fermienrico 7y ago20% hospitalization rate is what everyone should focus on. CFR is 3% but hospitalization of young adults is extremely high. When young people have to get treatment and they can't - they'll suffer and have serious consequences if not death. Edit: Listen to the person replying to me. It is not 20%, but 3.3%. I am off by an order of magnitude.
- bpodgursky 7y agoNone of those numbers are accurate. Latest research: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... .66% CFR, with 3.3% hospitalized (and fewer ICU) under age of 40. Even in the >80 age range, hospitalization is < 20%. If you're going to make a point, make the point with accurate numbers -- those are off by an order of magnitude.
- fermienrico 7y ago3.3% is still insanely high. If 50% of US population is under the age of 40, that's 5 million people in hospitals. This changes nothing.
- Judgmentality 7y ago> This changes nothing. It literally changes everything, as you're spreading false information. Instead of 20%, it's 3.3% - that doesn't change anything? It's the difference of tens of millions of lives just in the United States! Yes, 3.3% is still high, but it's not even in the same ballpark as 20%. And not everyone will be hospitalized at once, which is the entire point of flattening the curve.
- fermienrico 7y agoThe point is that 20% or 3.3%, the amount of hospitalizations would far exceed the capacity. We shouldn’t get there in the first place. So the proposed idea of opening things up is a non starter. I’ve already edited my comment to concede on 20%. Why get so combative in responding? I’m not trying to spread false information and willing to concede when new factual information is reported. Jeez.
- Judgmentality 7y ago> Why get so combative in responding? Because you were arguing tens of millions of deaths "changes nothing."
- fourmyle 7y agoThere are zero hospitals in America that over capacity right now including NYC.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoHow much of that is due to hospitals clearing out and refitting themselves to support what they knew was coming? Do you expect that trend to continue?
- vfc1 7y agoThe operative words are "right now", with the current evolution of the virus and the population not taking the measures seriously, how long do you think that is going to last?
- standardUser 7y ago25,000 cases to 250,000 cases in two weeks. Give it another two weeks. Thank god people with foresight and basic math skills are the ones planning for increased hospital capacity.
- fourmyle 7y agoMore and more tests means more and more cases. More cases with less deaths means the mortality percentage is lower. The number of cases does not matter at all. BTW God should be capitalized it's a proper noun.
- CydeWeys 7y agoI'm in NYC and I have no idea what you're talking about. Many of our hospitals are well beyond capacity, the most well reported on example being Elmhurst Hospital. Go look it up.
- RHSeeger 7y agoThe NYTimes article seems to disagree with you [1] > Across the city, hospitals are overrun. Patients have died in hallways before they could even be hooked up to one of the few available ventilators in New York. Doctors and nurses, who have had to use the same protective gear again and again, are getting sick. So many people are dying that the city is running low on body bags. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/nyregion/ny-coronavirus-usns-comfort.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/nyregion/ny-coronavirus-u...
- throw90312 7y agoDo you have a source for that? I think we are doing all this, so some people can live 3 years longer. A few more months like this and people will start dying from other causes (crime, hunger...).
- fourmyle 7y agoLike guns the virus is much more of a problem in urban places than rural places. Americans not in cities aren’t going to take much more of this shutdown imo.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoShouldn't this be asterisked with a "So far"? The black plague devastated rural communities along with urban.
- ogre_codes 7y agoThe Black Plague was spread by rodents. Coronavirus currently required a human carrier. I do agree about the "So Far" bit though, if precautions aren't taken, eventually someone will catch it and it'll spread. It's already happened in a few places. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/us/coronavirus-funeral-albany-georgia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/us/coronavirus-funeral-al...
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoThose will also be the locations with less preparedness. How many small towns even have ICUs?
- danharaj 7y agoThis is misguided. The capacity of the healthcare system in rural areas will be even easier to overwhelm.
- notyourday 7y agoThat's armchair quarterbacking from people with more than enough money for shelter and food.
- caseysoftware 7y agoExactly. I see most of the advocates for "shelter in place until we're safe!" are white collar people with space at home and direct deposit.. not hourly workers who just lost their livelihoods with kids at home and the only internet is on their phone.
- notyourday 7y agoWhite collar carnage will start by the end of this month.
- threatofrain 7y agoNot all US states are doing it the same way so it’ll be interesting to see how things go.
- mathdev 7y agoThat's false. Death is the natural and inevitable outcome of life. The people who would die of COVID are nearly exclusively people who would die relatively soon anyway. For an average 85 years old person, the risk of dying due to COVID if no mitigation is attempted is 6.3% [1], less than the risk of dying of other causes during the next year (9.6%) [2]. A 20 years old is more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by COVID. The life expectancy saved by the lockdown is just so small. I find it extremely hard to believe that the lockdown will cause less loss of life than the new virus would have. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820%2930243-7 https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820... [2] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html#fn1 https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html#fn1
- rmrfrmrf 7y agoMy assumption was that at least part of the reason for isolation measures is to prevent what happened with the Spanish Flu, where unfettered transmission created the conditions for a mutation that turned the U curve for mortality into a W curve.
- catalogia 7y agoIs Covid-19 more likely to suddenly mutate and become more lethal to young adults than, say, some strain of influenza doing that (again)?
- mathdev 7y agoThe opposite. It mutates more slowly than the flu.
- mathdev 7y agoI think it's mostly to avoid the bad press of having to do triage at hospitals, long-term consequences be damned.
- elcritch 7y agoYou're getting downvoted, but while it may not be pretty to think about, these other factors are important to consider. Even the expected years of life lost (which are factors found in medical literature). Unfortunately COVID-19 does affect younger people to a degree (40-50's) who could live healthy productive lives for decades, so it's not going to be pretty numbers. Still "Flattening the curve" seems to be the only thing epidemiologists are focusing on, but ignoring the death toll from unemployment, domestic abuse, depression/suicide, and others. Not to mention how many people will die from exposure to being evicted due to being unable to pay rent or hunger from buying groceries. Or the long term effects of depressions or social anxiety from being locked down, etc. These are real factors. The CDC's lack of modeling of these factors is disconcerting, if not bordering on _incompetence_. I've been searching for models (preferably using STAN or similar to calculate adjusted statistical likelihoods) to estimate holistic effect of lockdowns on overall death rates adjusted for those factors. So far I haven't found anything, or very limited research. It sucks, but as a society, we have to be able to critically analyze the situation, including the tough factors of triage at a societal level.
- mehrdadn 7y agoI think the parent was implying people are more willing to risk coronavirus death than to be stuck at home for as long as they're expected to.
- CydeWeys 7y agoThis may be true for now when most peoples' lives are as yet still unaffected by it, but it's very much not going to be true after a month of uncontrolled pandemic when everyone will know many people who've died from it.
- mehrdadn 7y agoI agree, though it'll be a little late at that point.
- treis 7y agoYou're overestimating the impact. The worst case scenario is more like 1 out of every 100-200 Americans dying. Concentrated mostly in the elderly. The majority won't have anyone close to them die and few will have "many".
- mehrdadn 7y agoNo, the worst case scenario is much worse than that. Hospitals won't have room to take care of most people with the virus or other illnesses for that matter, and many will die as a result of just that. The hospitalization rate is quite a bit more than 1%, and that becomes the death rate when no hospital can take care of you. These have all been repeated in the media many, many times by now. I'm in fascination of how people are receiving the memo so slowly in 2020. Not to mention 1/100 is enough for a lot of people to result in at least one person they know dying.
- treis 7y ago>No, the worst case scenario is much worse than that It's really not. People just don't seem to grasp that the rates for positive cases are drastically different than the rates for people infected. We aren't doing nearly enough testing to catch even all the symptomatic cases let alone the asymptomatic and mild ones. The infection fatality rate is almost certainly under 1% and not everyone will get infected even in the worst case. >Not to mention 1/100 is enough for a lot of people to result in at least one person they know dying. Only if we use a very broad definition of what "know" means.
- econcon 7y agoBut the ones who will go against lockdowns will be the one who have no savings and that means mostly young people who virus affects with less severity than older ones. It seems old ones are also the people who have most real estate in America?! So if virus is passed on to old people and they die. Then natural consequence will be that, their property will be passed onto their kids who will most likely sell it immediately and cash out why? Because kids of most wealthy suburban families usually live in huge Metropolitan cities so they are unlikely to hold onto property in suburb. And does it mean soon lots of cheap properties will be available for sale in suburb?
- baron_harkonnen 7y agoFor those without saving lockdown means that everything is paused. Right now in many places landlords cannot charge late fees, services can't be cut off. Additionally there's lots of sympathy for those in need. While isolation persists we'll see more programs like NYC provided 3 meals a day. Once isolation ends then the bill collectors will start coming and the free meals will be come rare but people will remain severally unemployeed. The people with no savings are the ones that are going to most want this to last since there's no going back to the way things were right now. Many of the jobs lost will not be immediately replaced when the isolation stops.
- throw90312 7y agoNothing is paused. You will still have to pay for everything, maybe latter, but eventually you will get kicked out. I will probably go to prison, child support is still enforced. There is ZERO sympathy.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- econcon 7y agoWhat do you think about the real estate? Do you expect more properties to come on market for younger folks? Will it become cheaper to buy new property?