5 ms·

The IFR would be worse if medical care wasn't available because of hospitals being over-capacity and health care workers burning out (or dying themselves). Fat

The IFR would be worse if medical care wasn't available because of hospitals being over-capacity and health care workers burning out (or dying themselves). Fatalities from other causes would increase too (as they're already doing due to people avoiding medical care due to fear of infection at hospitals). The absolute number of dead would also rise were the lockdowns not in place. Just how many people do we want to sacrifice to keep restaurants open? Also, fatalities aren't the only thing we have to worry about. People who survive can have very serious complications. Finally, why should we only look at the effects on people younger than 70?

indecisive_user 6y ago
>People who survive can have very serious complications. This is true of several respiratory illnesses. For example there's evidence that the flu can increase the chance of a cardiovascular event for several months after recovery[0]. Is there evidence that covid has more severe long term complications than other respiratory illnesses? >why should we only look at the effects on people younger than 70? We shouldn't, of course. However we also shouldn't base policy off of a minority of the high risk population. Older people are also at a much higher risk of auto accidents. Instead of making the license process more difficult for everyone, several states have rules specifically for older people mandating more frequent vision tests and license renewals. Instead of banning a low risk activity for a mostly low risk group, why don't we put resources into taking care of the high risk population(free grocery/medicine delivery, prioritized telehealth appointments, etc.) and let everyone else take care of their own risk assessment? [0]https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/29/1/96/2398118 https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/29/1/96/2398118
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  Just a couple of days ago "the U.S. recorded over 3,100 COVID-19 deaths in a single day"[1] I have a very hard time imagining that restaurant closings or any other lockdown measures are ever going to lead to this scale of death. [1] - https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/12/03/more-than-2800-americans-reported-dead-with-covid-19-on-wednesday-in-worst-day-of-the-pandemic/ https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/12/03/more-than-2800-a...
onecommentman 6y ago
“Just how many people do we want to sacrifice to keep restaurants open?” Just how many lives do we save by keeping restaurants open? Healthier food, portion control, emotional health? People sacrifice their lives to eat in restaurants...implicitly, when they drive a car to/from and risk an auto accident. It is probably small numbers against small numbers...and erring on the side of choice and economic activity is a standard US thing. The poster didn’t propose to ignore effects on the 70+...where did you read this? It would have been wiser had the government health communicators introduced the notion of QALY to the US public at the start of this COVID event. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16877455/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16877455/ Anyone dealing with aging parents is painfully aware of the need to balance remaining length of patient life with quality of life, including caregivers. The rest of the US needs to grow up about this. Politicians avoid talking about this...too much like leaving Grandma on the ice floe. It’s the medical/public health professionals role to do that.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "Just how many lives do we save by keeping restaurants open?" You tell me. How many? "People sacrifice their lives to eat in restaurants...implicitly, when they drive a car to/from and risk an auto accident. It is probably small numbers against small numbers" Like I said elsewhere in this thread, just the other day the US had over 3,000 COVID-19 deaths in a single day. That doesn't sound like a small number to me, and I'd be surprised if anywhere near that number of people died driving to a restaurant that day. "The poster didn’t propose to ignore effects on the 70+...where did you read this?" Right. They just happened to only quote the IFR rate for people < 70 years old, and not mention the IFR for people 70 and older. That sounds like they ignored them to me.
  - indecisive_user 6y ago
    >You tell me. How many? Based on the available evidence, I think the number is close to zero. >Restaurants have been mandated by the state to impose certain regulations and hygiene measures. They follow the general principles of harm reduction that Monica Gandhi[0], an infectious disease expert at UCSF, goes by: masks, distancing, ventilation and hand hygiene. "There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that outdoor dining with those four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19," she said. [1] So there seems to be no evidence that banning outdoor dining is going to do anything positive in stopping the spread, though we know for certain it will have destructive effects on people's well being and the economy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Gandhi [1] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Is-outdoor-dining-spreading-coronavirus-As-15774639.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Is-outdoor-...

indecisive_user 6y ago

>People who survive can have very serious complications. This is true of several respiratory illnesses. For example there's evidence that the flu can increase the chance of a cardiovascular event for several months after recovery[0]. Is there evidence that covid has more severe long term complications than other respiratory illnesses? >why should we only look at the effects on people younger than 70? We shouldn't, of course. However we also shouldn't base policy off of a minority of the high risk population. Older people are also at a much higher risk of auto accidents. Instead of making the license process more difficult for everyone, several states have rules specifically for older people mandating more frequent vision tests and license renewals. Instead of banning a low risk activity for a mostly low risk group, why don't we put resources into taking care of the high risk population(free grocery/medicine delivery, prioritized telehealth appointments, etc.) and let everyone else take care of their own risk assessment? [0]https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/29/1/96/2398118 https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/29/1/96/2398118

pmoriarty 6y ago
Just a couple of days ago "the U.S. recorded over 3,100 COVID-19 deaths in a single day"[1] I have a very hard time imagining that restaurant closings or any other lockdown measures are ever going to lead to this scale of death. [1] - https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/12/03/more-than-2800-americans-reported-dead-with-covid-19-on-wednesday-in-worst-day-of-the-pandemic/ https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/12/03/more-than-2800-a...

onecommentman 6y ago

“Just how many people do we want to sacrifice to keep restaurants open?” Just how many lives do we save by keeping restaurants open? Healthier food, portion control, emotional health? People sacrifice their lives to eat in restaurants...implicitly, when they drive a car to/from and risk an auto accident. It is probably small numbers against small numbers...and erring on the side of choice and economic activity is a standard US thing. The poster didn’t propose to ignore effects on the 70+...where did you read this? It would have been wiser had the government health communicators introduced the notion of QALY to the US public at the start of this COVID event. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16877455/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16877455/ Anyone dealing with aging parents is painfully aware of the need to balance remaining length of patient life with quality of life, including caregivers. The rest of the US needs to grow up about this. Politicians avoid talking about this...too much like leaving Grandma on the ice floe. It’s the medical/public health professionals role to do that.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"Just how many lives do we save by keeping restaurants open?" You tell me. How many? "People sacrifice their lives to eat in restaurants...implicitly, when they drive a car to/from and risk an auto accident. It is probably small numbers against small numbers" Like I said elsewhere in this thread, just the other day the US had over 3,000 COVID-19 deaths in a single day. That doesn't sound like a small number to me, and I'd be surprised if anywhere near that number of people died driving to a restaurant that day. "The poster didn’t propose to ignore effects on the 70+...where did you read this?" Right. They just happened to only quote the IFR rate for people < 70 years old, and not mention the IFR for people 70 and older. That sounds like they ignored them to me.
- indecisive_user 6y ago
  >You tell me. How many? Based on the available evidence, I think the number is close to zero. >Restaurants have been mandated by the state to impose certain regulations and hygiene measures. They follow the general principles of harm reduction that Monica Gandhi[0], an infectious disease expert at UCSF, goes by: masks, distancing, ventilation and hand hygiene. "There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that outdoor dining with those four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19," she said. [1] So there seems to be no evidence that banning outdoor dining is going to do anything positive in stopping the spread, though we know for certain it will have destructive effects on people's well being and the economy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Gandhi [1] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Is-outdoor-dining-spreading-coronavirus-As-15774639.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Is-outdoor-...