By ‘sick’ I mean people with preexisting health conditions that put them at a higher risk. Not all are in hospitals. Old people are still going shopping, and taking buses and trains.
How about 65+, maybe 60. Look at death rates by age group for this virus, very few young people are dying but lots of seniors are.
About that article, it would be interesting to know how many of the younger people hospitalized in NY have other health issues. That may explain a lot.
This would be a massive amount of people and doesn’t include all the people with undiagnosed pre-existing conditions.
If death rates from Coronavirus were the lone fear I would be more inclined to agree. It’s not. Look at the number of required hospitalizations for people who are under 65. Dying from Coronavirus is less important right now than keeping people out of the hospital is. To the general fight against Coronavirus and everything else people die of.
We are already pushed to the brink with what we have at this moment. And we will never be able to determine the number of deaths that may happen not from Coronavirus itself but because of it’s impact on the need for resources.
It would be less people than are currently affected by the shutdown, and those with undiagnosed conditions are still going out in public right now.
You have a point, but looking at the numbers I really wonder what would have happened if they did something like what I am suggesting. Somewhere between 20-50% of people who get infected will have symptoms, but again for most of those it will be mild and not require medical treatment. I don’t have exact figures since none are available yet, but it’s going to be a fraction of that need medical treatment at all and a smaller fraction that need ventilators, etc. Also those numbers are for the general population, if the sick and elderly were isolated then it changes the picture again.
The problem is that we are dealing with limited data right now, but if you take adequate precautions for those at a high risk then the number of severe cases could potentially be even lower than what it is right now since everyone is potentially exposed to infection. You would need to create one of those ‘models’ to show how it could work out and that is beyond my field of expertise.
Even if you think what I’m saying is wrong and not worth considering, maybe we should at least consider isolating all the high risk people and have things delivered to them so that this would end faster.
Then I’m confused by what you want. You seem to be advocating here for a tighter shutdown at the same time as saying we can’t afford to be shutdown.
I think this would be great if we could go back in time. It’s just a fun what if game now.
But we are overwhelmed with where we are at…and so
I’m by no means opposed to something like that. I merely think we don’t have any idea of how to identify all the high risk people nor do we have the means in this country to do that at this moment.
I don’t think I need to be isolated but I have no idea. People my age are dying and people my age are needing hospital beds and ventilators. Same as you.
At least half the population?
Tighter shutdown for some, less for others. Minimize risk where risk is high and not take needless precautions that come at a high price.
It could still be done, maybe not everywhere. The situation needs to be assessed first. Maybe a place like New York really should stay locked down but not some other places.
Are we?
In a city of 1 million people:
322 laboratory-confirmed cases, including 4 deaths, have been reported in Ottawa.
14% of cases have ever been hospitalized, including 6% in intensive care.
14%=45 6%=19
Half the deaths so far in Ontario were people in nursing homes. Maybe they need more precautions for nursing home staff to stop them from spreading it to residents.
Now would be the time to figure that out. America can send people to the moon and fight multiple wars all over the place, they should be able to do this on their own territory.
No way it’s that much. The study that found that 50-75% were asymptomatic came from Italy which has the oldest population in Europe and also a lot of smokers, which is another risk factor. But still, locking down half the population while the other half keep things running is better than what is happening now.
What if a lockdown right now in Kansas keeps it from turning into New York?
Aren’t you the same guy who always talks about Canada not having enough hospital beds?
So in a time with overwhelmed health systems trying to save people’s lives now we need to check all healthy Americans and determine their risk and then open them up based on that? What if those “healthy” people spread the virus? What if the virus makes those healthy people sick?
You aren’t looking at the situation correctly. Even those with risk factors don’t always get sick or, if they do, they don’t always die. It’s not an automatic death sentence for the elderly or those with other risk factors. BUT, if you are elderly or have risk factors you are playing Russian Roulette to some degree in case you do get infected.
I would bet that more than half the employable population is working right now. They say that unemployment could reach 30%. That’s less than half. And things are still running.
We’re talking about the same thing in multiple threads, this is a bit too much.
If the sick and elderly were isolated then it won’t happen.
They cancelled elective surgeries and a bunch of other stuff to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. 45 patients have visited a hospital due to coronavirus in Ottawa so far, that is a drop in the bucket.
Its not overwhelmed everywhere. Where there are resources they can be put to use. You don’t necessarily need to check people either, some conditions are undiagnosed but most are already known.
They do spread the virus, and 50-80% of the whole population would never get symptoms if they are infected. Remove the elderly and people with known pre-existing conditions and an even smaller number will have symptoms. As I have said over and over, right now the elderly and sick are still potentially being exposed because they have to go out to buy food.
I don’t get your point, my whole argument is that those people are the ones who need to be isolated.
I’m not sure what the exact numbers are and they will vary from place to place due to different measures and different businesses. But in Ottawa nearly everything is closed, grocery stores, pharmacies, and liquor stores are open, some restaurants are still offering take out or delivery but most closed, and office workers are either working from home or not working at all. Pretty much everything else is shut down, the construction season would be starting up again now but construction is banned, anything deemed non-essential is not operating.
The 30% unemployment figure is the estimate for when this is over, some businesses had to close and temporarily laid off employees but those people will have jobs waiting for them when this is over.
You don’t get the reality; in the US at least, it’s a good bet at least half the population has at least one risk factor in addition to the one we all share, that is, we are alive.
What if around half the doctors and nurses have a risk factor? I’m sure whatever the number is, it’s significant enough to impact healthcare if the isolate. Let’s add in first responders. What if 20% of a police force needs to isolate?
So it’s better if all those people get sick and die?
The action we are taking at this moment is a lower risk than what you have proposed. Although the odds are unlikely that me a relatively young male without known preexisting conditions would die, I wouldn’t be the first. And I wouldn’t be the first to be hospitalized going into an already beyond taxed US system.
Opening things back up is necessary. It just isn’t necessary at this moment. At the least bit we have no idea at least in America how many people would need isolated and the manner. Isolating everyone to the best of our ability right now makes more sense than attempting to figure out who all should be isolated and how that works.
A different strategy perhaps in a couple weeks. Right now we are seeing our numbers of infected and dead going up in huge rates. Not time to mess around.
I think some of your ideas for ways to protect the more vulnerable that may keep them from going out in public are solid. It would just be pretty difficult to organize such a thing at this moment with everyone trying to isolate to the best of their abilities. Also we have people who refuse to follow any guidelines anyways. In fact they openly defy them simply because they are being told it’s not healthy. In America a lot of us are willing to stay inside and do nothing until we are told it’s the healthy thing to do. Then we go off in big crowds because no one tells us to be healthy!
It’s better that all the people who will get sick and die, don’t all die at once. Which will mean fewer will die overall.
Don’t forget Proust!
This just happened in my area. Some dumbass–an adult, post college, post-yuppie aged dumbass–just posted on FACEBOOK that he’d gotten tested for covid-19 but was “going out because I can’t wait around for that shit. I’ve got places to be. I’m busy”. Asshole went to Menards, Home Depot, a grocery store and a couple other places.
In public, while waiting for a test response. Because he “can’t wait around”.
Fortunately someone called the cops on him (it wasn’t me, but I have a mate that knows who this person is and knows who called the police).
That’s pretty moronic. Rand Paul (who for some reason I once thought had a brain) did something very similar. A doctor and a Senator should be a little smarter than some dumbass.
Oh there’s no question about that. The only thing I have to say to counterbalance that is at the time Paul got tested we had only 4,600 cases nation wide, and at the time he was likely exposed we had something like 900. Certainly dumb and selfish, but admittedly it is much easier to rationalize when you’re highly protected, first class travel being insulated from the “plebs”, and the nation has “a few” cases instead of 350,000.
FYI that was only 21 days ago.
Thank God(/s). Is there a law where you live prohibiting him from going to those places?
We are under an enforced stay-at-home order except for essentials only, and family/care visits. That wasn’t the reason he was out, and sarcasm aside, he potentially contaminated 5-6 stores while feeling sick because he felt like it.
I know you’re an AnCap, but assuming you recognize rule of law an order that is under enforcement + a willing and voluntary flouting of that order WHILE possibly sick + a voluntary admission of your callous disregard for everyone else is not the hill you should die on.