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

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerides A temperature test is meaningless theatre. Sure it might get a chunk of sick folks but not just those with covid, and far from all of those with it. Antibody testing is many months away from being real time and probably even further away from being a cost effective way to perform daily testing on everyone who wishes to go to work or go into a group setting.

I don’t think it’s meaningless. Just because it doesn’t catch 100% doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done in the workplace. It will make people more aware of the situation and pay more attention to symptoms. And it will catch some folks who shouldn’t be there for whatever reason and IMO every little bit helps.

[SoReady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian S ... as well other esperts who have studied the good docs' analysis and found it wanting.

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.

[audreyh1]

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?

[PatrickA5]

I don't think there's any way to open things up with just the less vulnerable. Just won't work. No way to enforce it. No way to know who's vulnerable (other than age). Besides, a large segment of people DO have a co-morbidity and just don't know it (heart disease, HBP, diabetes, etc).

There's a lot of pressure to re-open. I think we're just going to have to see how this all works out. It could be a disaster. It might not.


Some people will stay home and do what's necessary to avoid the virus as best they can. A LOT of people don't think it's a big deal. I don't see that changing.

Even though my city has a "mandatory" use of face masks, my trip for groceries showed maybe 25% with masks on and half of those were protecting their necks instead of their faces.

[ShokWaveRider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatrickA5 Even though my city has a "mandatory" use of face masks, my trip for groceries showed maybe 25% with masks on and half of those were protecting their necks instead of their faces.

Perhaps they were VERY heavy smokers.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatrickA5 I don't think there's any way to open things up with just the less vulnerable. Just won't work. No way to enforce it. No way to know who's vulnerable (other than age). Besides, a large segment of people DO have a co-morbidity and just don't know it (heart disease, HBP, diabetes, etc).

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?

[Rianne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover 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?

I believe your data is incorrect.

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

Several Edits: read the article.

[SoReady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 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?

It is long because they present a lot of numbers related to their area, California, U.S., Sweden, Norway, etc. Plus the press interjects with questions which makes it long. It is worth listening to and I'm sure I won't give it justice. Considering am stay at home orders I had plenty of time to watch it. I watched in 2 sitting though.

It has been a few days since I watched it but I think their bottom line is if you take out 65+ with underlying conditions and nursing homes (maybe some others) that the number infected/deceased is not statistically significant to the seasonal flu. They do concede that during the initial outbreak or understanding of this virus, the lock down of the economy was the right thing to do. Now that time has passed and more data is available to analyze (which they do a lot of extrapolation on) then keeping a lock down for everyone isn't the best approach going forward. If I recall, they said testing was key and that targeting the food supply would be an area to first open up. All employees tested and if negative they can go to work. If not they go home. Basically not different if you have a flu - you should stay home.

There is so much more related to allowing schools to return, etc. I don't think I can remember all the salient points but I felt that it gave me a different perspective to looking at the numbers. For example, reading the Sunday Chicago Tribune I noticed during an article on the Illinois numbers that 1/3 of all deaths in the state are attributed nursing homes. Normally I might not have picked up on that. But if that is someplace that is easily quarantine - able and then look at the numbers for the other 2/3 are of the general population, what does that do to your thinking? For me it indicates less of an impact to the rest of the population which less scary that the headline number that I might usually just stop at.

But also, as I said, I'm very interested to hear experts opinions on the Dr's video. I would really love to have Fauci's take on this. I'm just trying to figure out if what these guys are saying is something that holds water or not. For now I agree with some of the things they are suggesting.

[rk911]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Because nobody in one of the hot zones would dream of driving to one of the 102 counties to go shopping...

counties with minimal CV19 problems aren’t hotspots but in any case citizens aren’t under house arrest...yet. martial law has not been imposed...yet. citizens are free to travel still so a person in a hot zone can today, this very minute, get in a car, get on a train, fly to wherever they choose. and none of that has anything to do wirh eliminating the “stay at home order, suggestion for counties with minimal CV19 problems. businesses could re-open and people could re-start their lives. “one size fits all” is very bad policy.

[HawkeyeNFO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harllee If all of us over 60 are forced to stay home many businesses won't make it.

If no one is allowed to go to the business, then they don't even have a chance. I agree with harllee, everyone should be allowed. Let the customer have the freedom of choice. Let them decide if the risk is worth the reward.

[Aerides]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardsFan 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rianne 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rk911 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoReady 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/2020/0...d-conclusions/ :

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.