Author Topic: CoronaBro Meltdown/SARS-Covid-19 Spitballing Thread  (Read 1067145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53781
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
To be fair, roughly 85 percent of the population is under 65. 

If 15 percent of the population is taking up nearly half of the beds, that's still a very disproportionate amount of older people in the beds.

Old people take to a disproportionate number of ICU beds in normal times too.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22252
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
To be fair, roughly 85 percent of the population is under 65. 

If 15 percent of the population is taking up nearly half of the beds, that's still a very disproportionate amount of older people in the beds.

Old people take to a disproportionate number of ICU beds in normal times too.
Right.  Perhaps I'm missing Doc Delgado's point.

I don't think anyone is under the belief that young people (i.e. those under 65) are not at risk of hospitalization (or dying) from the virus.   Just that their risk of both is much much lower. 


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53781
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile


To be fair, roughly 85 percent of the population is under 65. 

If 15 percent of the population is taking up nearly half of the beds, that's still a very disproportionate amount of older people in the beds.

Old people take to a disproportionate number of ICU beds in normal times too.
Right.  Perhaps I'm missing Doc Delgado's point.

I don't think anyone is under the belief that young people (i.e. those under 65) are not at risk of hospitalization (or dying) from the virus.   

Plenty of people are under that impression

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53252
    • View Profile
The largest metro areas in Canada are about the size of Charlotte or KC.   

:dubious:

lol yeah.  Some people need to get out more

Oh yeah, I forgot what huge demographers we have on this board.






Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53252
    • View Profile
The Euro Nations I mentioned combined have fewer people and more Covid-19 deaths than the United States, Phil.
What do their population densities look like?

Tap out accepted
Just found it odd that you brought up relative population density when discussing Canada, but left that out when discussing the euro nations.

Anyway, I'm not doing this with you any further.  Proceed with the back and forth with the usual gang.  I'll be back in a few hours to hopefully bring some encouraging news.

Canada is near the bottom of the list in terms of overall population density in just about any way you want to look at it, the EU countries considered peers are towards the top of the various lists.




Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22252
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile


To be fair, roughly 85 percent of the population is under 65. 

If 15 percent of the population is taking up nearly half of the beds, that's still a very disproportionate amount of older people in the beds.

Old people take to a disproportionate number of ICU beds in normal times too.
Right.  Perhaps I'm missing Doc Delgado's point.

I don't think anyone is under the belief that young people (i.e. those under 65) are not at risk of hospitalization (or dying) from the virus.   

Plenty of people are under that impression
I don't really think that's the case -- i doubt a significant portion of the pop believes that it's impossible for them to die/get hospitalized from corona.  The risk becomes very very low the younger you get, but doesn't go away.

That said, I think the media/Politicians have done a shitty job of explaining who is at risk here and what that risk is.  It's not nonexistent for anyone, but for a significant portion of the population, I think the risk is low enough that it's hardly worth considering, imo (at least for one's own health).


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40513
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
i'm mostly with the flu bros on the age thing.   the way the media focuses on younger deaths (and probably declines to emphasize age in cov2 discussion) gives an erroneous impression about the relative risks.  people persistently talk about obesity and asthma and heart disease and other comorbidities as if they were equivalent risk factors with age.  and they're just not even close.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53781
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
I don't really think that's the case -- i doubt a significant portion of the pop believes that it's impossible for them to die/get hospitalized from corona.  The risk becomes very very low the younger you get, but doesn't go away.

That said, I think the media/Politicians have done a shitty job of explaining who is at risk here and what that risk is.  It's not nonexistent for anyone, but for a significant portion of the population, I think the risk is low enough that it's hardly worth considering, imo (at least for one's own health).

that's fair. I don't think people realize there's a not-insignificant number of young people currently going to the ICU.

Also a better way to look at the data that doctor was trying to share is hospitalization rates - about 2.5% of 19-44 year olds are hospitalized if they get it per the CDC. At least using data from March, it would be great if that was updated.




I don't know how that compares to other regular infectious diseases, but a 3% chance of going to the hospital if I got it would make me rethink behavior.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53781
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
looks like the flu is around 0.5% hospitalization rate for 19-44?

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018/archive.htm

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53252
    • View Profile
Spank Sock musical overlay just for @Trim

When will Gav send in the Gestapo?

https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1265358206395613184?s=20

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 41982
  • Pfizer PLUS Moderna and now Pfizer Bivalent
    • View Profile
Has that skate park been allowed to open yet?

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53252
    • View Profile
Has that skate park been allowed to open yet?

Apparently not.


Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22252
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
I don't really think that's the case -- i doubt a significant portion of the pop believes that it's impossible for them to die/get hospitalized from corona.  The risk becomes very very low the younger you get, but doesn't go away.

That said, I think the media/Politicians have done a shitty job of explaining who is at risk here and what that risk is.  It's not nonexistent for anyone, but for a significant portion of the population, I think the risk is low enough that it's hardly worth considering, imo (at least for one's own health).

that's fair. I don't think people realize there's a not-insignificant number of young people currently going to the ICU.

Also a better way to look at the data that doctor was trying to share is hospitalization rates - about 2.5% of 19-44 year olds are hospitalized if they get it per the CDC. At least using data from March, it would be great if that was updated.




I don't know how that compares to other regular infectious diseases, but a 3% chance of going to the hospital if I got it would make me rethink behavior.
Yeah it's frustrating that the range 19-44 is used.  19 year olds are far less likely to have serious complications than are 44 year olds.

As of the week ending 5/16:

76 15-24 year olds had died of CV.
463 25-34 year olds had died of CV.
1186 35-44 year olds had died of CV.
3293 45-54
8311 55-64
14,447 65-74
18,621 75-84
22,542 85 or older

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex

Those are death counts, but I imagine the hospitalized counts would mostly follow the same correlation (though less drastic).

I think the thing that could have prevented the most deaths (aside from nailing the spread itself in January-March) would be to focus the bulk of our attention to protecting seniors (>65), who have accounted for roughly 80 percent of the deaths listed in that linked (and slightly outdated) CDC chart.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 41982
  • Pfizer PLUS Moderna and now Pfizer Bivalent
    • View Profile
Has that skate park been allowed to open yet?

Apparently not.



It should be bulldozed then.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15219
    • View Profile
looks like the flu is around 0.5% hospitalization rate for 19-44?

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018/archive.htm
And that’s with a widely available vaccine.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53252
    • View Profile
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8351113/Wuhan-virus-lab-signed-Michel-Barnier-2004-despite-French-intelligence-warnings.html

Yet we keep acting like they're going to change. 

According to Le Figaro, a diplomat with a close knowledge of the deal added: ‘We knew the risks involved and thought that the Chinese would control everything and quickly eject us from the project.

‘We believed that providing this cutting-edge technology to a country with an endless power agenda would risk exposing France in return.’

Their fears were compounded in 2015 when China implemented a new policy of ‘dual use’ technologies, which allows their armed forces to use any civilian technology for military purposes.


Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22252
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Looking for somewhere in the range of 1330 today. 

If weekend reporting numbers were extra low because of the holiday, we could see a "spike" (small/no dropoff/slight gain?) compared to last tuesday (1430), but 1330 is my guess.  Anything below that is great.
629.  Pretty hard to believe.  And I'd guess we see the numbers slightly correct through Friday, so keep that in mind if we see a number over 1500 or 1600 sometime this week. 

That said, if tomorrow's numbers come in below 1400, the 7 day avg is under 1000 for the first time in almost two months.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline Phil Titola

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15302
  • He took it out!
    • View Profile
Looking for somewhere in the range of 1330 today. 

If weekend reporting numbers were extra low because of the holiday, we could see a "spike" (small/no dropoff/slight gain?) compared to last tuesday (1430), but 1330 is my guess.  Anything below that is great.
629.  Pretty hard to believe.  And I'd guess we see the numbers slightly correct through Friday, so keep that in mind if we see a number over 1500 or 1600 sometime this week. 

That said, if tomorrow's numbers come in below 1400, the 7 day avg is under 1000 for the first time in almost two months.

Dare I say, that's great!

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53781
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Looking for somewhere in the range of 1330 today. 

If weekend reporting numbers were extra low because of the holiday, we could see a "spike" (small/no dropoff/slight gain?) compared to last tuesday (1430), but 1330 is my guess.  Anything below that is great.
629.  Pretty hard to believe.  And I'd guess we see the numbers slightly correct through Friday, so keep that in mind if we see a number over 1500 or 1600 sometime this week. 

That said, if tomorrow's numbers come in below 1400, the 7 day avg is under 1000 for the first time in almost two months.
Is it really that difficult to believe given the holiday?

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22252
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Looking for somewhere in the range of 1330 today. 

If weekend reporting numbers were extra low because of the holiday, we could see a "spike" (small/no dropoff/slight gain?) compared to last tuesday (1430), but 1330 is my guess.  Anything below that is great.
629.  Pretty hard to believe.  And I'd guess we see the numbers slightly correct through Friday, so keep that in mind if we see a number over 1500 or 1600 sometime this week. 

That said, if tomorrow's numbers come in below 1400, the 7 day avg is under 1000 for the first time in almost two months.
Is it really that difficult to believe given the holiday?
That’s my point.  I don’t think the number is reliable.  I worded the post poorly.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53781
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Looking for somewhere in the range of 1330 today. 

If weekend reporting numbers were extra low because of the holiday, we could see a "spike" (small/no dropoff/slight gain?) compared to last tuesday (1430), but 1330 is my guess.  Anything below that is great.
629.  Pretty hard to believe.  And I'd guess we see the numbers slightly correct through Friday, so keep that in mind if we see a number over 1500 or 1600 sometime this week. 

That said, if tomorrow's numbers come in below 1400, the 7 day avg is under 1000 for the first time in almost two months.
Is it really that difficult to believe given the holiday?
That’s my point.  I don’t think the number is reliable.  I worded the post poorly.

ah I see what you meant

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 41982
  • Pfizer PLUS Moderna and now Pfizer Bivalent
    • View Profile

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53781
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 41982
  • Pfizer PLUS Moderna and now Pfizer Bivalent
    • View Profile