3 ms·

What's best for the nation. Having blanket lockdowns with no timeline for lifting them, while also wrecking the economy because people don't want their 80+ gran

by dx87 6y ago

What's best for the nation. Having blanket lockdowns with no timeline for lifting them, while also wrecking the economy because people don't want their 80+ grandma to die of covid isn't necessarily good for the country, even if it makes people feel better in the short term.

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
You like playing with numbers do not you? Covid becomes a very significant risk for people older than just 60, we are not talking about 80+.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  His point still applies with people 60 or older.
DanBC 6y ago
Mean age of people in English ICUs is currently just under 60, and median is just over 60. 20% of patients are 60-69. 15% are 50-59. https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports There are more people aged 40-49 than 80+ in ICU.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  From that exact report you just linked... 77.4 percent of people admitted to the ICU were above age 60. Also you're wrong with your numbers. You skipped females. So in total around 30% of people admitted to the ICU are age 60-69. There's not a whole lot of 80+ year old people considering the average lifespan is mid 70's, so you have to do the per capita math on that.
nobody9999 6y ago
>What's best for the nation. Having blanket lockdowns with no timeline for lifting them, while also wrecking the economy because people don't want their 80+ grandma to die of covid isn't necessarily good for the country, even if it makes people feel better in the short term. To where, specifically are you referring? I'm not incredibly well informed about policies outside where I live, but I'm not aware of any place in the US where every business is closed, everyone is required to stay indoors, all economic activity has ceased and police are using criminal penalties to enforce such behaviors. The above is what you mean by a "blanket" lockdown, yes? I'm not sure where you're talking about. I live in one of the most densely populated (27,000/sq mile) areas in the world (NYC), and we don't have (and haven't since June) had anything that could plausibly considered a "blanket lockdown." Actually, even when NYC was experiencing the worst, and a "lockdown" was in place, some businesses were open and people were absolutely not required to stay in their homes. Even so, the restrictions put in place were effective in reducing the exponential spread of COVID and allowed us to relax those restrictions. In fact, except in a few areas with infection rates that are 5-8x surrounding areas, schools and almost all businesses are open (with some restrictions like indoor mask wearing/limiting the size of indoor gatherings). There were pretty strong lockdown measures in the Mid March-early June timeframe, but those are long gone. We are able to do this because we do a huge amount of testing and surveillance and have data-driven rules (>3% positive test results for seven consecutive days, for example) for addressing case clusters. Lockdowns (like social distancing, wearing face coverings and improved hygiene) are just one facet of an appropriate response. Large-scale testing, tracing and surveillance are required to ensure that infection clusters don't spread into larger populations. No one wants lockdowns, but unless we utilize the other tools available to us, we will likely see R0 growing beyond our ability to control it. And if infection rates skyrocket, lockdowns become the only way to minimize the spread of infection. But making all that happen requires the cooperation of the vast majority of us. Where there are lockdowns, that's evidence of failure to execute on all the other mechanisms we have to combat this virus.

by dx87 6y ago

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago

You like playing with numbers do not you? Covid becomes a very significant risk for people older than just 60, we are not talking about 80+.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
His point still applies with people 60 or older.

DanBC 6y ago

Mean age of people in English ICUs is currently just under 60, and median is just over 60. 20% of patients are 60-69. 15% are 50-59. https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports There are more people aged 40-49 than 80+ in ICU.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
From that exact report you just linked... 77.4 percent of people admitted to the ICU were above age 60. Also you're wrong with your numbers. You skipped females. So in total around 30% of people admitted to the ICU are age 60-69. There's not a whole lot of 80+ year old people considering the average lifespan is mid 70's, so you have to do the per capita math on that.

nobody9999 6y ago

>What's best for the nation. Having blanket lockdowns with no timeline for lifting them, while also wrecking the economy because people don't want their 80+ grandma to die of covid isn't necessarily good for the country, even if it makes people feel better in the short term. To where, specifically are you referring? I'm not incredibly well informed about policies outside where I live, but I'm not aware of any place in the US where every business is closed, everyone is required to stay indoors, all economic activity has ceased and police are using criminal penalties to enforce such behaviors. The above is what you mean by a "blanket" lockdown, yes? I'm not sure where you're talking about. I live in one of the most densely populated (27,000/sq mile) areas in the world (NYC), and we don't have (and haven't since June) had anything that could plausibly considered a "blanket lockdown." Actually, even when NYC was experiencing the worst, and a "lockdown" was in place, some businesses were open and people were absolutely not required to stay in their homes. Even so, the restrictions put in place were effective in reducing the exponential spread of COVID and allowed us to relax those restrictions. In fact, except in a few areas with infection rates that are 5-8x surrounding areas, schools and almost all businesses are open (with some restrictions like indoor mask wearing/limiting the size of indoor gatherings). There were pretty strong lockdown measures in the Mid March-early June timeframe, but those are long gone. We are able to do this because we do a huge amount of testing and surveillance and have data-driven rules (>3% positive test results for seven consecutive days, for example) for addressing case clusters. Lockdowns (like social distancing, wearing face coverings and improved hygiene) are just one facet of an appropriate response. Large-scale testing, tracing and surveillance are required to ensure that infection clusters don't spread into larger populations. No one wants lockdowns, but unless we utilize the other tools available to us, we will likely see R0 growing beyond our ability to control it. And if infection rates skyrocket, lockdowns become the only way to minimize the spread of infection. But making all that happen requires the cooperation of the vast majority of us. Where there are lockdowns, that's evidence of failure to execute on all the other mechanisms we have to combat this virus.