ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1067 of 3903
« First < 675679671017105710631064106510661067 106810691070107110771117116715672067 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
PAChiefsGuy 07:38 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
But if you think about it that means the mortality rate is 33% lower than believed.
That's a good point.
[Reply]
F150 07:41 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
Ok question for everybody...

Now that multiple reports are showing fatality rates for people under 50 to be equivalent to a bad flu season, what is the point in continued isolation of that demographic after our death rates plateau or start to fall?

Let's say we have already hit peak and the next few days we stay below 1000 deaths/day (this is not a prediction but a hypothetical). At what point do you ease restrictions on the extremely low risk people? We obviously can't shelter in place until a vaccine comes out. Do we wait until a treatment has been proven to be effective? Do we wait until a certain percentage of America has immunity? What is your metric?

Rate of spread would be the ideal way to determine the impact of mitigation efforts. Under 50s are no more or less likely to spread the virus, some would say more likely due to more mobile than 50 plus and more prone to gather in groups foolishly and against the guidelines we have established. The restrictions will need to stay intact after we begin to see declines, and the easing of restrictions will need to be don slowly so we can monitor the impact of each...and likely hotbeds of infections will be the last areas that should get relief.

Hopefully the med community will have a standard process in place to deliver vaccinations in an orderly manner
[Reply]
loochy 07:43 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Claim the weak? That's a little disrespectful. So you think your parents and grandparents are weak?
Absolutely they are

Not that I want them to die or anything

But they are getting to be quite physically frail (and the cognitive slide is starting too)
[Reply]
ptlyon 07:47 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by loochy:
Absolutely they are

Not that I want them to die or anything

But they are getting to be quite physically frail (and the cognitive slide is starting too)
He just needs something to bitch about
[Reply]
O.city 07:53 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
But if you think about it that means the mortality rate is 33% lower than believed.
Not necessarily

Some deaths wouldn’t be attributed to covid 19 because they had a false negative test
[Reply]
Marcellus 07:54 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
Not necessarily

Some deaths wouldn’t be attributed to covid 19 because they had a false negative test
Goddammit O.city! :-)
[Reply]
PAChiefsGuy 07:54 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by loochy:
Absolutely they are

Not that I want them to die or anything

But they are getting to be quite physically frail (and the cognitive slide is starting too)
Oh okay I see what you are saying.

That's true but I mean I think it is kind of harsh to call other ppl weak because they may have a physical condition that is no fault of their own. Lets try and work together to beat this and not act like we are better than ppl because some of us were lucky enough to not be born w some disabilities

Originally Posted by O.city:
Not necessarily

Some deaths wouldn’t be attributed to covid 19 because they had a false negative test
Another good point lol
[Reply]
Marcellus 07:54 AM 04-03-2020
So were yesterday's real numbers less than 1,000 deaths?
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 07:55 AM 04-03-2020
The other issue is that false negatives increase the likelihood of further spreading the virus, as those people are less likely to self-isolate or quarantine.
[Reply]
O.city 08:04 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
The other issue is that false negatives increase the likelihood of further spreading the virus, as those people are less likely to self-isolate or quarantine.
If you assume 1/3 of the negatives are positive and that the actual number of infected is 100 to 130 times the number of positives, well.....

That’s a lot of infections
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 08:04 AM 04-03-2020
I haven't yet read this paper and am not an economist, but for those of you most concerned about the economic impact of this, it may be a worthwhile read:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3561560

The abstract states that the areas with the most rigorous public health response to Spanish flu were no worse off economically than those that eased restrictions earlier.

"We find no evidence that cities that acted more aggressively in public health terms performed worse in economic terms,” says Emil Verner, an assistant professor in the MIT Sloan School of Management and co-author of a new paper detailing the findings. “If anything, the cities that acted more aggressively performed better.”
[Reply]
O.city 08:05 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I haven't yet read this paper and am not an economist, but for those of you most concerned about the economic impact of this, it may be a worthwhile read:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3561560

The abstract states that the areas with the most rigorous public health response to Spanish flu were no worse off economically than those that eased restrictions earlier.
I read it yesterday

It makes sense. The harder and faster you lock it down the faster you can get back to work theoretically
[Reply]
RedRaider56 08:12 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
So were yesterday's real numbers less than 1,000 deaths?
looks like it

Heard a report on the news last night that in NYC emergency rooms, if a patient goes into cardiac arrest and has no pulse when the ER team arrives, to not even try and revive. Call the death, clear & clean the room and wheel the next patient in.
[Reply]
SupDock 08:21 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by RedRaider56:
looks like it

Heard a report on the news last night that in NYC emergency rooms, if a patient goes into cardiac arrest and has no pulse when the ER team arrives, to not even try and revive. Call the death, clear & clean the room and wheel the next patient in.
I didn't read that. I think you may be misunderstanding the article.

The policy is in regards to cardiac arrest in the field and resuscitation by EMS. If return of spontaneous circulation is not achieved in the field, the patient is no longer being transported to the hospital. The patient is declared dead in the field.

Believe it or not, there is a lot of evidence to support this, you cannot do high quality CPR in the back of an ambulance, and if return of circulation does not occur in the field it is very unlikely to occur in the hospital. I'm not certain, but I believe there are already EMS systems that have this policy in place, and it has nothing to do with Covid-19

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541113/
[Reply]
AustinChief 08:24 AM 04-03-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
No. Nor are the hospitalization rates similar.
Yes it is true and it's already been posted in this thread. .16%

I am not claiming that figure is a final number but that it is being reported as such is 100% true. So, you can kindly fuck off if you'd like to claim otherwise you arrogant piece of shit

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
[Reply]
Page 1067 of 3903
« First < 675679671017105710631064106510661067 106810691070107110771117116715672067 > Last »
Up