Agree we need to reopen without vulnerable/elderly at first?

[Aerides]

So...just watch the last 60 seconds and ignore the rest? Would you tell everyone to do that if it was a 50 minute video you agreed with and it had a couple of dumb comments at the end? Or would you tell them to watch the whole thing and then make up their own mind?

If you just want to argue about media consumption, this is not the place.

 

[eytonxav]

There are differing perspectives on managing Covid from the worlds leading epidemiologists and it seems to me that such differing points of view makes for better decisions in the long run. These two docs concurred with the initial lockdown approach, but are now saying that based on the data in California and testing in their county, it is no longer necessary to lockdown everyone, just the > 65 and those with comorbitities. Their clinics have also been doing Covid testing and they have results from the tests they have done. Shutting down different points of view in our society sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion.

That said, I think folks need to make up their own minds if they want to continue to shelter in place without be forced to do so.

 

[rk911]

People keep saying test everyone, like it could be done easily. There are 330 million people in the US (I did not look it up, could be a little different, but close).

So, let's test everyone once a month, except healthcare workers, first responder's and other critical workers should be done more often (weekly? daily?).

We very quickly get to half a billion, or more, tests required every month.

Does anyone really think this is in any way possible or practical?

of course not. so, while we’re at it let’s test (screen) for other deadly, communicable disrases. winter 2017-2018 saw 95,000 dead from the flu. whether that was over 3-months or 6-months is not relevant. we didn’t go into hiding or commit economic suicide then. why not? cause it was just the flu! and the used-to-be-guardians-of-our-republic (otherwise known as the media) didn’t bat an eyelash and rightly so.

 

[Music Lover]

I believe your data is incorrect.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm


Best to read the article.


Edit: Death rate from Covid 19 as of April 27:


45-64 years old - 5021
65-74 years old - 6077

I know the numbers which is why I said healthy people under 50.
- Under 35 the total is 251 out of 149 million
- Under 45 it's 781 people out of 190 million
- Under 55 it's 2475 out of 231 million

 

[Aerides]

of course not. so, while we’re at it lets test (screen) for other deadly, communicable disrases. winter 2017-2018 saw 95,000 dead from the flu. whether that was over 3-months or 6-months is not relevant. we didn’t go into hiding or commit economic suicide then. why not? cause it was just the flu! and the used-to-be-guardians-of-our-republic (otherwise known as the media) didn’t bat an eyelash and rightly so.

A) the "what about the flu" is soooooo February, let's not rehash that
B) the 2017-18 flu season had 61k deaths, according to the CDC, and the per month stats might be relevant to the approx. 60k deaths that we'll have by the end of this first full month of tracking Covid in the US, despite social distancing/stay-at-home.

 

[REWahoo]

What's that I see headed this way?

 

[ls99]

What is their basic premise? Because honestly I don’t want to sit through a 50min video especially if there is a lot of spin. Are they saying CA hospitals are currently underutilized?

I listened to their discussion.
As I understand it, their basic comparison of Sweeden, no lockdown and Norway with lockdown the number of deaths are roughly comparable.
Another point they make is to quarantine sick people not healthy ones.

Also commented that people with conditions not related to Covid are fearful to contact doctors for treatment. And that they see a good amount of family involved abuse as result of lockdown.

They do object to to listing Covid as cause of death on death cerificates, when it was but one of the problems, such as High BP, Lung damage from years of smoking, to name a few. When if someone dies as complications of Influenza, it is not listed as THE cause.

I understand that youtube deleted their video, for not conforming to World health org. opinion.

I won't get involved in discussion on weather they are right or wrong, simply listing my understanding of their presentation.

 

[PatrickA5]

At a certain point you have to stop punishing everyone because of a few idiots. If you're healthy and under 50 the fatality rate is almost 0.00%. The vulnerable people will always be vulnerable...even a year from now, so knowing that how long should the 10's of millions of healthy people stay locked up?

Very soon everybody will be able to go back to their old lives - if they want. The "healthy" people will be free to do as they please. The old and unhealthy people will also be free to do as they please. We're going to see how this all works out. I don't know the answer.

 

[Bir48die]

I just approach this very simply. Do we take a risk of more people getting infected or do we go through the worst depression since the Great Depression? This is unsustainable.

 

[Ian S]

I agree that some parts of this presentation seemed smirky and sometimes I thought they may be coming at it from a political standpoint, but I tried to focus on the numbers and the logic to their conclusion. And I also concede that I am no expert and would like to understand what some experts may have to say about this, especially since this video is gaining traction e.g Facebook, etc.

So I'm asking you if you can help me read some other esperts who find the conclusions and suggestions "wanting". This would help me. I've posted this in another group and someone said the same thing, but so far no link to the other experts yet.

Thanks.

From https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/debunking-bakersfield-doctors-covid-spread-conclusions/ :

The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling. He likened their extrapolations to “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.”

and:

In a rare statement late today, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine declared they “emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Messihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”

In essence, the two doctors try to extrapolate from a completely unrepresentative sample to the entire population. They can then estimate a death rate that is ridiculously low and claim that COVID is no big deal so we should all get back to business as usual so their clinics can make lots of money again.

 

[Beststash]

Life is a risk. Personally I have seen very little impact to my life other than trying to get groceries and not seeing family as much as usual. I don't expect things to change much going forward except maybe things might be a little more subdued. I don't really care for all of the constant hype about how great we are or wonderful things will be, when actually most of it is nothing more than marketing by business or politicians.

I expect to be cautious going forward just to protect my health and I hope we learn from some of our recent mistakes.

I'm enjoying my country life and retirement and am thankful to still be here everyday.


Peace and Love!

 

[Chuckanut]

With 78% of US Covid-19 deaths aged 65 or older and 92% aged 55 or older (based on CDC mortality data), does anyone think we can practically avoid reopening without much stricter conditions on the most vulnerable (specific underlying health conditions) which may include older Americans? Though there will be more cases of infections as the less vulnerable re enter, most will not require hospitalization or ICU care?

The economic damage is mounting fast, and if we decide to wait until everyone is safe, it seems the damage to everyone will be considerably greater.

I’ve noticed several states and the latest White House reopening plans make general statements regarding the most vulnerable - but the specific directions from states that have begun or announced reopening don’t provide any additional guidance/precautions addressed to the vulnerable population that I’ve seen.

Of course others young and old may elect to stay in place (much) longer. Those with known underlying comorbidities would be foolish to NOT stay in place longer?

+1

You'll get no argument from me. As one of those 'elderly' people who are more at risk I will gladly limit my life for a few more months if my children and other younger folks can go back to work and keep the economy from being driven into the dust. I regard it as a Win/Win for those who stay at home longer and those who can go back to work.

There has been, is, and will be damage from this virus. It's all about compromise and balance to minimize the damage overall.

P.S. We can all agree to disagree agreeably. Let Porky sleep. My guess is he - or is it she? - needs the sleep as the poor thing must be very busy on certain other forums.

 

[Rianne]

I know the numbers which is why I said healthy people under 50.

Define Healthy. No pre existing conditions? Eats healthy foods? Exercise? Feels good? Correct BMR? Everyone's healthy until they're not.

 

[donheff]

I just don’t get it.

The CDC has published a decent, not perfect, three phase process to get us back in business. It envisions the most vulnerable demographics taking active steps to protect themselves, including continued isolation. It prescribes a coordinated testing, tracing, and containment program to hold the infection rate to a dull roar while working on treatments. It envisions active testing and surveillance of senior centers to prevent raging outbreaks. In theory, this will work. We are spending trillions to ameliorate the hit to the economy. Why aren’t we devoting a fraction of that to mount a Marshall Plan to implement the national guidelines? Instead we rely on piece meal, uncoordinated efforts.

I just don’t get it.

 

[fh2000]

Each morning, when I go for a walk, I wear a mask, and keep everyone else at least 6 feet away. I bring a 3 feet long umbrella with me. When fully extending my arm with it, it makes a 6 feet long ruler.

Once all is open here in SoCal, I would like to go to the beach and hike the local trails with the same precaution. What everyone else does is out of my control. I just have to remind myself that I am part of the high risk group and be cautious.

 

[Rustic23]

I caught a short segment of Dr. Oz this morning. Gist of what he said was (from memory not quote) over 90% of deaths come from vulnerable population. However, he went on to imply a large segment, over 50% has at least ne vulnerability i.e. ag, overweight, pre or actual diabetics, etc. i think he said 40% has at least two vulnerabilities.

Not sure how this figures in, but it seems that a good percentage of those vulnerable will have to go back to work. Being broke was not listed as a vulnerability, It somehow I think it would be.

 

[MrsHaloFIRE]

Personally, I am just happy that yelling "Get the **** away from me!" is now a public service announcement instead of being rude.

Do we reward with points for great responses like this? This individual deserves points

 

[ivinsfan]

Personally, I am just happy that yelling "Get the **** away from me!" is now a public service announcement instead of being rude.

Yes Brewer if they ever make a reality show. How to survive COVID, you would be the first person cast...you'd be a light in the darkness.

 

[audreyh1]

I listened to their discussion.
As I understand it, their basic comparison of Sweeden, no lockdown and Norway with lockdown the number of deaths are roughly comparable.

Well they are flat wrong about that. Sweden’s death rate is far higher than Norway’s like 10X! and their deaths per 1M population way higher, even though Sweden’s case count is about 3x Norway’s. And Norway has tested more people. So I don’t get it.

 

[Music Lover]

In essence, the two doctors try to extrapolate from a completely unrepresentative sample to the entire population. They can then estimate a death rate that is ridiculously low and claim that COVID is no big deal so we should all get back to business as usual so their clinics can make lots of money again.

And yet the CDC numbers are ridiculously low for healthy people under 45, even 55:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

 

[Music Lover]

If you just want to argue about media consumption, this is not the place.

I said nothing about the media. But I did list the actual CDC numbers in the link that was provided (by someone else) that showed an extremely low rate for healthy people under a certain age.

 

[pacergal]

Personally, I am just happy that yelling "Get the **** away from me!" is now a public service announcement instead of being rude.

Funniest thing I have read in a while!
I agree. Our life/choices will be to continue much the same, except no travel for a long time. We pick up groceries 90% of the time, rarely go into stores, wear masks when out, and limit time with kids.
But I know that the economy has to get going, people need to get back to work. Hopefully, with better understanding and testing, we will have a better handle on numbers going forward.
Everyone has their own choice to make as things open up.

 

[Ian S]

And yet the CDC numbers are ridiculously low for healthy people under 45, even 55:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

So around 8% of COVID-19 deaths are for people under 55. That doesn't sound ridiculously low to me. But of course we're only looking at COVID-19 deaths.

The Bakersfield docs are trying to extrapolate a biased sample to an entire population. It's total B.S. They are either ignorant of how to do statistics properly (which is forgivable) or are intentionally trying to mislead (which IMHO is not forgivable.) Based on public proclamations made by one of these docs, there would appear to be ulterior motives.

 

[Dtail]

So around 8% of COVID-19 deaths are for people under 55. That doesn't sound ridiculously low to me. But of course we're only looking at COVID-19 deaths.

The Bakersfield docs are trying to extrapolate a biased sample to an entire population. It's total B.S. They are either ignorant of how to do statistics properly (which is forgivable) or are intentionally trying to mislead (which IMHO is not forgivable.) Based on public proclamations made by one of these docs, there would appear to be ulterior motives.

Usually one doesn't have to look further than the money motive.

 

[Teacher Terry]

When there is a vaccine I don’t think it will be a one and done. I think it will be like the flu vaccine. Older people can’t isolate forever. When things open up we do some things like eat in a restaurant. We won’t go to crowded places like movies and concerts. We won’t even consider traveling until next summer. Staying home for years is not living.