Florida Surpasses 200K Coronavirus Cases; Fatality Rate Remains Low

[Cathoholic]

. . . As Americans struggle to understand the risks of COVID-19 relative to other infectious diseases, a common benchmark is influenza, commonly known as the flu. So what is the relative risk of dying from COVID-19 vs. the flu? The answer: it depends on your age, and also your assumptions about how deadly COVID-19 will turn out to be.

However, based on mid-range assumptions, it appears that those under 25 have a significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 vs. the flu . . . .

Bold mine.

Estimating the Risk of Death from COVID-19 vs. Influenza or Pneumonia by Age - FREOPP

Younger Americans appear to have a significantly lower chance of dying from COVID-19 than they do of more common infectious diseases.

freopp.org

 

[Montrose]

Just to give an idea how countries have dealt with the crisis. The US is clearly out of control and other countries put up the US as a case study in how to NOT properly manage a pandemic.
Here in the Philippines the population is 100 million plus (around one third of the US ).
We have been under lockdown since March 17, especially Metro manila which is the epicentre. When I say lockdown I mean it. Since March 17 the only reason we are allowed to leave home is to go to supermarket, doctor/hospital, pharmacy or bank. We cannot walk the dog or go jogging. If we are caught breaking the quarantine we would be taken by the police, details taken and an official warning given. If caught a second time we would be arrested and possibly jailed.
Most public transport still forbidden. Postal services are suspended.
Those who are allowed to work are those in essential services.
All schools and colleges are closed and will remain closed until a vaccine is available. That means for the coming school year in the whole country education will be online or home schooling.
Wearing masks outside your house is mandatory and if caught without you will be arrested. Almost everyone complies.
If you think I have forgotten anything you would be interested in knowing please ask.
I forgot. All gatherings are forbidden and that includes churches. Bars and restaurants are also closed.
Deaths from covid-19 totals 1,835. This proves lockdown works.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . .

Absolutely. I detest broad brushes. Tools of the ignorant.

Hume on the very next post . . .

Is there an article from, say, the last two months from a credible source stating the usefulness of masks is ambiguous?

My guess is that if you find one it’ll be old and therefore outdated or from a “news” source like Breitbart or Blaze or Infowars.

.

Well that detesting of broad brushes and “tools of the ignorant” and all of that sure didn’t last long.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

However, based on mid-range assumptions, it appears that those under 25 have a significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 vs. the flu . . . .

This observation has absolutely no bearing on either the practical or the moral question of how seriously we should take covid-19. The outbreak is a social phenomenon, not an individual phenomenon. The policies we adopt affect the whole of society. If there is a segment of the society (like the young) who are not personally adversely as affected, but who can and will transmit the virus to others who are vulnerable, then the decision of what they should do cannot be made by considering only how it affects them personally.

Yes, different diseases affect different age groups differently. The 1918 pandemic was especially hard on the otherwise young and vigorous. This one is different in the way in which it attacks the body, so the being young and vigorous is a help.

 

[vz71]

The reason so many still get flu is the stupid stupid anti-vaxxers refuse to get their children or indeed themselves vaccinated.

This is both uncharitable and false.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Herd immunity for coronavirus would require 60-70% of the population be immune. The population of new york state is ~19 million. They have had ~400k confirmed cases. If we assume they only caught 1/10th the actual cases, and 100% who have had it are now immune, that is 4 million people immune.

4 million / 19 million = 21%

Conclusion: NY has not achieved herd immunity, even with extremely generous estimates of total cases (scholarly estimates put the number of actual cases at less than 1 million.) We haven’t even reached Sweden’s extremely optimistic estimates of when herd immunity would be achieved.

We have observed in closed environments that we never see more than 20% to 25% of the captive population get infected. This isn’t an isolated instance, this has happened often enough for the open minded to think there may be something there.

Two of the most prominent closed environments for which good data are available were the Diamond Princess cruise ship off of Yokohama and the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt. For the Diamond Princess, the infection rate was about 20% and the deaths were predominantly among the old. Only one death of someone under 60 and two more under 70. For the Roosevelt, the demographic on board was younger, the infection rate was about 25% and there was only one death.

This observation has been repeated often enough that this has spurred research into what is keeping so many other people from getting infected. That research that is being discussed. Is it T cells? Maybe. But if somewhere around half the population had this form of immunity that would explain the herd immunity effect of getting to 20% infected.

Under ordinary circumstances, you would be right about the infection rate required to achieve herd immunity. But that is not what’s happening. One has to admit that NY has stabilized here. At around 21%. We have observed that the thousand of protesters from May 26 to the end of June did not change that materially.

We can argue back and forth about immunity of the non-infected, but there’s no shoving this observation under the rug: that stability is somehow occurring when the infection rate approaches 20%, not when the infection rate gets over 60%.

NY isn’t the only region with stability. Italy is there. As is Sweden. Throw up your hands all you want, but it appears that the magic percentage is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20%, not 60-70%.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

This observation has absolutely no bearing on either the practical or the moral question of how seriously we should take covid-19. The outbreak is a social phenomenon, not an individual phenomenon. The policies we adopt affect the whole of society. If there is a segment of the society (like the young) who are not personally adversely as affected, but who can and will transmit the virus to others who are vulnerable, then the decision of what they should do cannot be made by considering only how it affects them personally.

Yes, different diseases affect different age groups differently. The 1918 pandemic was especially hard on the otherwise young and vigorous. This one is different in the way in which it attacks the body, so the being young and vigorous is a help.

They didn’t stop anyone from working in 1918 like they do today. Quarantine actions were left to institutions and local governments. Anyone who wanted to keep working, kept working. No vaccine in 1957 or 1968. People went to work and the economy went down, but not much. Certainly nowhere near like this year.

It’s time to let the healthy back into the economy and for everyone to evaluate their own risks. If they want to stay inside, that’s on them. If a school wants to close, that’s on them. If some other entity wants to keep its doors closed, that’s on them. If care facilities want to remain in lockdown, that’s prudent. They have the freedom to do that. Don’t dictate from on high, let the healthy go back to work. The virus is here, like it or not, and we’ve destroyed the economy far beyond the effects of the virus this year. Not to mention the tax base the cities, counties and states need to function. Restoring that tax base begins with allowing people to go back to work again.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They didn’t stop anyone from working in 1918 like they do today.

I would not hold up the 1918 response as a shining example of how to respond to a pandemic.

It’s time to let the healthy back into the economy and for everyone to evaluate their own risks.

Again, this attitude misses the communal nature of this outbreak. People’s actions affect other people besides themselves. So basing one’s response on one’s own personal risk is anti-social and not consistent with Catholic social teaching.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Again, this attitude misses the communal nature of this outbreak. People’s actions affect other people besides themselves. So basing one’s response on one’s own personal risk is anti-social and not consistent with Catholic social teaching.

Tearing down the economy is also anti-social. And anti-Catholic.

Have to strike a better balance.

I don’t forget you have no skin in the game. Try standing in the shoes of a healthy young person who is being held down.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

This observation has absolutely no bearing on either the practical or the moral question of how seriously we should take covid-19.

You just invented a straw man.

I never said this effects the practical or moral question of how “seriously” we should take Corona virus.

Any one who has read my posts (including you) knows I take it “seriously”.

What the age distribution DOES effect (and I have said this here at CAF many times) is our epidemiologic approaches.

With the media attempting to hide the fact (my opinion - and it is based on them almost never reporting these numbers) that influenza is much more of a danger to young people than Corona virus (and some leftist minions too) it distorts how we should approach protecting citizens.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Tearing down the economy is also anti-social. And anti-Catholic.

We don’t have to tear down the economy.

Have to strike a better balance.

It is not a zero-sum game that needs to have as much sacrifice on one end as there is gain on the other. We can be smarter and minimize the sacrifice on both ends.

I don’t forget you have no skin in the game.

Huh? That was out of left field. And meaningless. And mean. But mostly meaningless.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I never said this effects the practical or moral question of how “seriously” we should take Corona virus.

No, you throw out the factoid in midst of discussion about how serious this virus is, and just let people’s imagination run wild. It is an old technique for debating without really debating.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Huh? That was out of left field. And meaningless. And mean. But mostly meaningless.

Mean. For which I apologize.

But … we’ve had an awful lot of people with guaranteed paychecks promulgating policy for the rest of us without much comprehension for the effects on the economy. Like somehow they thought that every business could survive whatever it was they were doing to them? That every small business owner is a millionaire with deep pockets? That every small landlord can afford the nonpayment of rent for months?

Economy is life sustaining. To tear down the economy is not life sustaining.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle referring to youths dying if influenza as a mere “factoid” . . . .

No, you throw out the factoid in midst of discussion about how serious this virus is, and just let people’s imagination run wild.

If you want to squelch all that “imagination” that you have “imagined”, then bring the facts to LIGHT and discuss them.