COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[gearhog]

For those anxiously awaiting the vaccine... not so fast.

Dr. Tedros, The Director General of the World Health Organization warns:

Quote

" Since the beginning of the #COVID19 pandemic, we knew that a vaccine would be essential for bringing the pandemic under control. But it’s important to emphasise that a vaccine will complement the other tools we have, not replace them.

Initial supply of #COVID19 vaccines will be limited, so #healthworkers, older people & other at-risk populations will be prioritised. That will hopefully reduce the number of deaths & enable health systems to cope, but the virus will still have a lot room to move.

A vaccine on its own will not end the #COVID19 pandemic. We will still need to continue:

-Surveillance

-Testing, isolating & caring for cases

-Tracing & quarantining contacts

-Engaging communities

-Encouraging individuals to be careful "

So, we're not going back to anything resembling "normal".

Seems like all the vaccines require follow-on boosters. Pfizer, Moderna, and Astra Zeneca. Perhaps annually.

Quote

We may still not know precisely how long immunity to the new coronavirus lasts, but researchers don't think it's forever.

"With human coronaviruses,  you can get repeatedly infected — you're not immune for life, you're immune for some time," Florian Krammer, a vaccinologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told Business Insider.

"There's no reason to think this coronavirus will behave differently," he added.

That means that even after coronavirus vaccines become available and get widely distributed, we'll likely need booster shots to stay protected over time.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-booster-shots-after-initial-vaccination-2020-11

And if you don't want to get it, that's fine. No one will be pointing a gun at your head. However,

Quote

International air travellers will in future need to prove they have been vaccinated against Covid-19 in order to board Qantas flights, the airline says.

The Australian flag carrier's boss, Alan Joyce, said the move would be "a necessity" when vaccines are available.

"I think that's going to be a common thing talking to my colleagues in other airlines around the globe," he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55048438

Quote

Ticketmaster has been working on a framework for post-pandemic fan safety that uses smart phones to verify fans' vaccination status or whether they've tested negative for the coronavirus within a 24 to 72 hour window.

Many details of the plan, which is still in development phase, will rely on three separate components -- the Ticketmaster digital ticket app, third party health information companies like CLEAR Health Pass or IBM's Digital Health Pass and testing and vaccine distribution providers like Labcorp and the CVS Minute Clinic.

Here's how it would work, if approved: After purchasing a ticket for a concert, fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated (which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert. The length of coverage a test would provide would be governed by regional health authorities -- if attendees of a Friday night concert had to be tested 48 hours in advance, most could start the testing process the day before the event.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/touring/9481166/ticketmaster-vaccine-check-concerts-plan/

The post-vaccine world sounds awesome.

Edited November 23, 2020 by torqued

[ViperMan]

5 hours ago, Snuggie said:

But closing restaurants is hard, and would require major government intervention to keep them from going bankrupt, which as a country we have proven we won't do. So we are doing "virus theater" and pretending it's ok because the tables are slightly farther apart. 

I haven't eaten inside a restaurant since mid-March, and don't plan on it until my family is fully vaccinated. 

Yes, it is virus theater - we either don't know exactly what to do, or we do know exactly what to do but it's so hard that we can't do it. Instead we all collectively play make-believe that wearing a mask while you transit a restaurant is doing something will have an effect. It won't, and newsflash - it isn't. COVID is raging right now and I literally do not see anyone not wearing a mask while I'm out. I've eaten in restaurants weekly since COVID began - no issue.

That's not to say I don't take it seriously or that I don't think we should wear masks, but to say there is no "theatrical" component to this whole thing is to be denying reality.

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

I wonder if the Third Reich would have been successful if the internet existed back then. 🤔

I'm invoking Goodwin's law.

[Guardian]

Sure they have. Many state governments have banned smoking in public spaces because it’s been proven that one person’s second hand smoke can harm a non smoker. 

You’re taking his analogy out of context. Sorry. Couldn’t pass that up. Hello kettle.

[N730]

COVID is raging right now and I literally do not see anyone not wearing a mask while I'm out. I've eaten in restaurants weekly since COVID began - no issue.
That's not to say I don't take it seriously or that I don't think we should wear masks, but to say there is no "theatrical" component to this whole thing is to be denying reality.

That's good that people in your area are wearing masks. I went to Sam's yesterday and saw at least 15 people without masks and multiple people wearing mesh masks.

I also know of multiple daycares in my area that weren't taking any precautions because "kids don't get COVID", until they had multiple teachers and students come down with the virus and pass it between families.

Some people just don't give a shit.


Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

I wonder if the Third Reich would have been successful if the internet existed back then. 🤔

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Prozac

[brabus]

Drifting off the two major, recent points down the “yeah, but...” road; to bring it back:

- Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on? Is that our threshold for destroying businesses and the economic reliance owners and employees have on them? Is that our threshold for putting children’s education on pause for what will amount to at least a year for many? Is that our threshold that makes all the mental health decline worth it?

- Is it rational/logical to take your .14% chance of death if you get covid, and skip the vaccine until there is more time, trials, testing, etc. under its belt?

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, N730 said:

That's good that people in your area are wearing masks. I went to Sam's yesterday and saw at least 15 people without masks and multiple people wearing mesh masks.

I also know of multiple daycares in my area that weren't taking any precautions because "kids don't get COVID", until they had multiple teachers and students come down with the virus and pass it between families.

Some people just don't give a shit.

 

That's true, and it's BS. Businesses should be enforcing the mandates in order to minimize the potential for spread. And I have zero toleration for the "F you, I'm good" crowd. That said, those people are a fact of life and it's impossible to avoid them. I'm more irritated by the larger political context that is screaming that the sky is falling and what I consider a fairly immature response across the board.

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

I guess I just felt like making a point as irrelevant as yours.

[jazzdude]

Drifting off the two major, recent points down the “yeah, but...” road; to bring it back:
- Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on? Is that our threshold for destroying businesses and the economic reliance owners and employees have on them? Is that our threshold for putting children’s education on pause for what will amount to at least a year for many? Is that our threshold that makes all the mental health decline worth it?
- Is it rational/logical to take your .14% chance of death if you get covid, and skip the vaccine until there is more time, trials, testing, etc. under its belt?

The dumb thing about all this is it just boils down to "1) if you're sick, stay home until you're completely (and not just mostly) better." And since there's the complication of being contagious with COVID before the onset of symptoms, "2) if you were in close contact with someone who was sick, stay home for a bit a to see if you get symptoms. If you get symptoms, stay home and contact your doctor."

But for a whole host of social and economic reasons, that doesn't happen, especially in the US. We could probably be a lot more open right now if people just followed the two rules I led with, even without masks or social distancing. But we as a society can't (won't?) stay home if we're sick, which puts us where we are now.

Right or wrong, people are going to work when they probably shouldn't to get that paycheck, and since healthcare is largely tied to employment here. So there's a strong incentive to go to work sick, and maybe take tylenol to knock down any fever and some cough syrup to suppress coughing.

Or some people just don't care because it doesn't affect them since their symptoms are mild, so they see it as a non issue. Which is great and all until they interact with someone who is high risk (like a grocery worker or a waiter/waitress who can't stay home to avoid illness despite being high risk, due to bills or lack of sick leave). Still doesn't really affect the original person who was sick, but could be devastating to a stranger that has to interact with them and can't avoid the interaction.

As military flyers, especially as pilots, we benefit from having access to decent healthcare, as well as pretty rigorous medical screening early on that identifies underlying conditions, so our peer group is relatively low risk, outside maybe a spouse or kid with health issues.

I guess what I'm getting at is there are people/neighbors/fellow Americans that due to circumstance, can't choose to just avoid the whole COVID thing and hunker down (or have a choice to accept risk or not), and have to go in to work and interact with the public. Do we have a responsibility to protect those people? Or does it just suck to be them, and say they're in our thoughts and prayers?

I think at least some semblance of a social safety net (such as unemployment benefits, better sick leave policies/regulations, or access to at least emergency healthcare) is needed, and is similar to an ejection seat; should be a last resort, don't ever want to use it, but glad to know it's there if you need it, and hope that the system is maintained in the event it's needed. What percent of sorties require the use of the seat? Fractions of a percent? Cool, we can defer mx due to parts availability... Hopefully we didn't defer other actions or have outside factors (wx, threats) that drive up the likelihood of needing to use that seat.

[ThreeHoler]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/23/covid-vaccine-cdc-should-warn-people-the-side-effects-from-shots-wont-be-walk-in-the-park-.html

Sounds worse than the ol ‘thrax.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Drifting off the two major, recent points down the “yeah, but...” road; to bring it back:

- Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on? Is that our threshold for destroying businesses and the economic reliance owners and employees have on them? Is that our threshold for putting children’s education on pause for what will amount to at least a year for many? Is that our threshold that makes all the mental health decline worth it?

- Is it rational/logical to take your .14% chance of death if you get covid, and skip the vaccine until there is more time, trials, testing, etc. under its belt?

Is 12% the national average?  Where are you getting this number?  For UT the last number we have for positivity is 23.6%.  Which means, according to the experts, there's a lot of people that aren't getting tested that are positive.  Our hospitalization rate is high, also:

Percent of all non-ICU Bed Occupied - 53.7%
Percent of all ICU Beds Occupied - 87.9%
Percent of Referral Center ICU Beds Occupied - 91.9%

So I guess the question, for us locally at least, is when do we want to get serious about burning out our healthcare workers and not having to ration care?  Of course we've got people trying to break into hospitals to show it's a hoax, and saying germ-theory is a lie while protesting the mask "mandate" also...so.

13 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Good words

This is exactly what happened to us.  Ex-wife is a school teacher, she needs that check (she didn't get any of my retirement..woo) and had to go back to school. Daughter goes over before Ex has symptoms.  Boom, 8 days later daughter has COVID.  Ex's husband had to do a few days in hospital, and a week later is still on O2 looking really rough and she's had to go back to work but is exhausted at the end of the day.  Ex's symptoms were done last week.

4 hours ago, viper154 said:

I think the key there is hospitalized patients. Most patients that are hospitalized are elderly and/or other have health conditions, so they probably weren’t exactly fit to begin with. Small sample size, but I have several friends/co workers that have had the COVID, all either didn’t know they had it (except for a mandatory test coming back positive) or had mild symptoms and were back exercising within a week. 

To me, it just again emphasizes that people and businesses need to make the right choices for their situation. I’m in the camp of living as normally as possible. No one in my immediate family is anywhere near high risk, and we are not near elderly family. Our family engages in plenty of other “high risk” activities that are more likely to cause harm than COVID. Life is to short for us to hide in the house for something that most likely a non factor. 

I am all for the government “advising” what they think is best, but telling people (making laws/orders) how many guests they can have in their house is a step way to far. I have been to the hospital/doctor many times in my youth for injuries, every time the sky is falling and they want you to sit in bed until you are all better. From a medical stand point, sure, but from a practical/life stand point that isn’t always realistic. Unfortunately the medical field has been making policies for the law makers, with out to much of that common sense being intertwined, and a heavy dose of fear being thrown in. 
 

if the doctors had their way, no one would ride motorcycles, drink, play contact sports, etc. Do what’s best for you and live your life as you see fit. 

Are we counting people in their 50's as elderly?  That's the median and average age for hospitalizations in our State.  Yes, avg deaths is prob the same as everywhere else - 70's.  Our state is extremely healthy, and extremely white (minorities are having much worse outcomes). 

The gov't here, in ND and Republican Gov's across the midwest have been suggesting wearing masks for months.  Doc's sure weren't making the policies here because the Gov's ignored their pleas for months for a mask mandate.  But the gov's damn near begged people to do it, and asking businesses to enforce it.  Why would the Governors change that now to a mandate?  Do they suddenly hate common sense, and got a case of the "COVID fear."  Might be because North Dakota had 9 ICU beds left in the whole state.  UT's had exponential growth and an extremely stressed healthcare system.  Plus people throwing Halloween parties in warehouses because "they engaged in plenty of high risk activities that are more likely to cause harm than COVID. Life is to short for us to hide in the house for something that most likely a non factor."

But they're young people, they'll not be hit to hard and prob go out with a slight cough.  Get someone sick in line at Starbucks who's in Healthcare who just wants a coffee before another long shift at work, or a teacher, or a nursing home worker, or a grocery store worker.

Advising doesn't work for the majority of the population, ever.  Didn't work for seat belts, smoking indoors, drunk driving, and other "personal liberties" that were eventually legislated against. Which is really too bad.  This could have been a moment where we can together as Americans to fight a common foe like many other countries.  I'm pretty sure I posted this when it kicked off, but this whole thing is a giant, "It's not about you" test.

[Snuggie]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Drifting off the two major, recent points down the “yeah, but...” road; to bring it back:

- Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on? Is that our threshold for destroying businesses and the economic reliance owners and employees have on them? Is that our threshold for putting children’s education on pause for what will amount to at least a year for many? Is that our threshold that makes all the mental health decline worth it?

- Is it rational/logical to take your .14% chance of death if you get covid, and skip the vaccine until there is more time, trials, testing, etc. under its belt?

-Is this worth the number of hospitals that have had to close because COVID doesn't pay? We are at 47 closed or heading to closure as of last month and I would assume the number will go up: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/47-hospitals-closed-filed-for-bankruptcy-this-year.html

-Is it worth burning out experienced medical staff? Just as you can't replace a 15 year EP with a UPT grad you can't easily replace an experienced ICU nurse with a new grad from nursing school. UNMC in Omaha has been screaming that the situation is dire and our governor has thrown his hand and shrugged (well he has put a blue porch light on in support of healthcare workers so that's nice). : https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/11/americas-best-prepared-hospital-nearly-overwhelmed/617156/

-How many long term complications will come from COVID? And how much will be covered by the taxpayers? I think the number will be high. 

-How many strokes, cancers, and heart attacks will be missed because doctors don't have the time and space to treat them? We might never know but the number is not zero.

It is about to get really bad in Nebraska and there is lots of blame to go around. Part of it is that the Governor has not followed his own advice: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/fired-waitress-says-she-posted-video-of-ricketts-unmasked-because-she-was-aggravated/article_adf0d949-e8b6-5027-b630-21d5dd7ffe56.html. I will second @17D_guy ,this is about individuals taking action to help the collective that might not directly help themselves. I've asked many of my libertarian leaning friends a question and haven't gotten a good answer: how do you convince somebody to take an action (wear a mask, skip seeing your friends, etc) that might not directly benefit them but benefits the whole?

[17D_guy]

Here's Cody Garbrandt's update on why he hasn't been in a fight this late in the year. Meh, healthy young prize fighter, brick for right hand, healthy.  Shouldn't have a problem.

[jazzdude]

I've asked many of my libertarian leaning friends a question and haven't gotten a good answer: how do you convince somebody to take an action (wear a mask, skip seeing your friends, etc) that might not directly benefit them but benefits the whole?

I think the issue with libertarianism is it's predicated on shared values and the understanding that you can do what you want as long as it doesn't harm/impact me. This creates a motion that there should be as little government or regulations as possible. But the only way to do that is if there are shared values and norms that take the place of those regulations, most likely as unwritten rules and culture. Problem is, with a diverse society coming from different backgrounds and experiences, those norms and values don't like up, creating conflict.

I guess my stab at answering your question (though I wouldn't consider myself a libertarian) would be it depends on the person. You could appeal to their sense of compassion for those that are suffering. Or civic duty to help fellow countrymen. Or a scientific argument. It just depends on the individual, and what they really value (and not just what they say they value), and the message has to appeal to their values.

There's an element of theater with masks, in my opinion, but it's not without value. The example of masks in a restaurant. Wearing a mask to enter probably helps protect the host/hostess welcoming everyone, but not much for everyone else in the restaurant. Putting on a mask when you leave the table to use the restroom or leave doesn't really protect anyone-that potentially dirty air is already circulating, but probably not at the rate to pull out the dirty air and replace it with fresh air to really protect you in the restaurant. So the 1-2 min of masking to get to the restroom probably didn't reduce your exposure, so in that sense it's theater. But it also creates/reinforces a social norm of wearing a mask when you can (like when you're not eating or drinking). This habit would carry over to other public interactions, such as shopping in general or public transportation. So while it doesn't really do anything for you in the restaurant per se, it reinforces the habit so people are willing to wear a mask in other places where it may actually reduce exposure.

[VMFA187]

16 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Here's Cody Garbrandt's update on why he hasn't been in a fight this late in the year. Meh, healthy young prize fighter, brick for right hand, healthy.  Shouldn't have a problem.

 

Tore a vein and gave him blood cots? Damn, I didn't know covid could do that...

 

[jazzdude]

Tore a vein and gave him blood cots? Damn, I didn't know covid could do that...
 

There's growing evidence that while COVID spreads via respiratory system, that it may be a vascular disease. So it's not just the flu or a serious cold. And an otherwise healthy/fit person may not know they have another underlying condition until they get sick.

https://vascularnews.com/new-study-shows-covid-19-causes-blood-vessel-damage/

https://khn.org/news/clots-strokes-and-rashes-is-covid-a-disease-of-the-blood-vessels/

[Negatory]

On 11/23/2020 at 3:58 PM, brabus said:

Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on?

You have to put a disclaimer with your “99.86%” every time you write it or else you are being intentionally deceptive. What you meant to say was a 99.86% survival rate for people up to the age of 40, I assume. Also, let’s see your sources.

The problem with this talking point is that it entirely skews the whole problem. Literally everyone has known for months now that young people will be okay. But as soon as you hit 50-59 your case fatality rate hits 0.5-1.0%. 60-69 is 2-4%.

The real problem, though, is that 70 year olds have a 5-10% mortality rate and 80 year olds have a 15%+ mortality rate. And you’re ignoring that?

This is the actual issue, and you can’t just gloss over the portion of mortality that doesn’t fit your narrative because it’s convenient. Although I have noticed talk radio loves to try. It’s akin to saying “Cancer/heart disease/[insert literally 90% of diseases] isn’t important to study because it largely doesn’t affect young people.”

Now if you want to say that you’ve accepted the risk of older people dying - that that is a sacrifice we should make as a society - then at least you’re being genuine. Realistically there obviously has to be balance, but saying this isn’t a disease that’s more fatal than the flu and trying to discredit it with misleading statistics adds nothing to the conversation.

Heres an actual source with case fatality rates: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

[SurelySerious]

Isn’t that the nature of diseases, generally, that they disproportionately affect the older population? Our advances in medicine in the last hundred years have greatly outpaced evolution’s ability to catch up so that immune response stays strong later in life with the increased life expectancy.  We already spend a great deal of our medical effort on keeping people alive longer, so it’s a valid discussion on whether the whole of society should be diminished to protect the segment with the least productive potential. 

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

You have to put a disclaimer with your “99.86%” every time you write it or else you are being intentionally deceptive. What you meant to say was a 99.86% survival rate for people up to the age of 40, I assume. Also, let’s see your sources.

The problem with this talking point is that it entirely skews the whole problem. Literally everyone has known for months now that young people will be okay. But as soon as you hit 50-59 your case fatality rate hits 0.5-1.0%. 60-69 is 2-4%.

The real problem, though, is that 70 year olds have a 5-10% mortality rate and 80 year olds have a 15%+ mortality rate. And you’re ignoring that?

This is the actual issue, and you can’t just gloss over the portion of mortality that doesn’t fit your narrative because it’s convenient. Although I have noticed talk radio loves to try. It’s akin to saying “Cancer/heart disease/[insert literally 90% of diseases] isn’t important to study because it largely doesn’t affect young people.”

Now if you want to say that you’ve accepted the risk of older people dying - that that is a sacrifice we should make as a society - then at least you’re being genuine. Realistically there obviously has to be balance, but saying this isn’t a disease that’s more fatal than the flu and trying to discredit it with misleading statistics adds nothing to the conversation.

Heres an actual source with case fatality rates: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

Source for all past, present, and future data: CDC. I will state if different, but prefer to stick with CDC because that’s likely the most accurate/apolitical data we have. Since you clearly didn’t read everything I wrote, I’ll reiterate that I said multiple times these numbers are nationwide average for under 70, which makes up the vast majority of our population (~90%...technically 87% up to age 64, 2010 census brackets 65+ into one group; so clearly 69 and under accounts for more than 87%).

So yes, “disclaimer” clearly stated, and you are being deceptive/attempting to discredit data because it doesn’t fit your opinion, and hoping others haven’t actually read my posts and just assume your misrepresentation of such is accurate. Absolutely none of this is misleading or inaccurate, it is 100% factual straight from the CDC. I can’t help that you don’t like the numbers, but they are quite literally unemotional, apolitical, and as accurate as the CDC is capable of producing.

Now, to your age group point: making public policy and systemic level decisions based on 10% of the population is unsound my opinion. Why would you not make decisions based on how it affects the majority (in this specific case, we’re talking data points that represent a MASSIVE majority: ~90%). The 2019 average life expectancy was 78.8, so dying beyond that, regardless of cause, is beating life expectancy. That doesn’t mean their lives weren’t important to others, but unemotionally they have done better than average. Got it, cue bleeding heart; my point is emotional decision making is an awful failure when exercised at state and federal levels (and still usually bad even at a personal level). To make public policy based on 10% of the population who are already above average age, that negatively impacts the rest of the population, is emotional decision making at its worst and terribly short-sighted. 
 

Since you’ll probably respond with a demand for how I’d solve it - well, we should look at policy that aims to provide isolation OPTIONS for that age group, while allowing the other 90% access to the things they need to live life (and that includes things that contribute to mental well being). Let the 70+ demographic choose how to proceed - it’s their life and they should make the call, not the government. Maybe you don’t talk to enough 70+ year olds, because all of my family and friend’s families who are in that bracket are pissed and just want to be the ones who decide for themselves. Stop treating them like children who can’t make adult decisions.

But what about the hospitals? I agree, that’s an important question to ask/valid data point to take into account when making decisions. As of 14 Nov, COVID hospitalization rate is 228.7 per 100k population. Breaking it down to specifically COVID cases relative to number of those that end in hospitalization - 0.59%. All from the CDC, covering the entire age range.  I get it that in city X it is way worse than that, but its disingenuous to yell about that city while ignoring city Y that isn’t overrun at all. We’re talking state/federal level policy here, or at least I am. 

Edited November 25, 2020 by brabus

[Prozac]

Less than 3000 Americans died in the attacks on Sept 11 and we made some pretty significant policy based on that event. ~60k Americans were killed in the Vietnam war over 10 years and that is widely considered to be a great travesty. Are we really going to say that because COVID-19 only affects the old and/or vulnerable that we should disregard a quarter of a million fatalities? Think about that for a minute. A quarter of a million deaths in less than a year. When is the last time this country dealt with fatalities like that? WWII? The Civil War? What kinds of sacrifices did everyday Americans make then?

This idea that people have lived full lives and should thus be discarded is kind of sickening. If a cancer patient gets hit by a bus, guess what? It’s not the cancer that killed them. We don’t make the speed limit 75mph through retirement communities with the attitude that the people there have lived full lives & why should the rest of us be inconvenienced by slowing down? 

Now, is shutting down the entire economy necessary? Should our kids be denied their education? How much stimulus can a government that’s already in debt afford? Those are all valid questions and there is a pretty wide spectrum of reasonable answers given that this is the first time in modern history that a developed society has had to deal with something like this. Maybe, just maybe though, we could soften the blow a little bit if we were willing to make a few small sacrifices for one another. 

[Snuggie]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

  We already spend a great deal of our medical effort on keeping people alive longer, so it’s a valid discussion on whether the whole of society should be diminished to protect the segment with the least productive potential. 

We could have a group of people from CMS (Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services) meet and determine what health factors and state of diseases would cause CMS to no longer pay for treatment. Since Medicare pays for a vast majority of health coverage for people over the age of 65 their decisions would reverberate throughout the industry.  I like "panel" but I can't think of a first word that could go in front of it 🤔.

Dark jokes aside I suspect the glibness of the federal COVID response contributed to Trump losing the election. Seniors typically vote heavily Republican but didn't at the same levels this year. I assume the federal message of "only old people are dying from COVID" didn't help. 

[VMFA187]

17 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Less than 3000 Americans died in the attacks on Sept 11 and we made some pretty significant policy based on that event. ~60k Americans were killed in the Vietnam war over 10 years and that is widely considered to be a great travesty. Are we really going to say that because COVID-19 only affects the old and/or vulnerable that we should disregard a quarter of a million fatalities? Think about that for a minute. A quarter of a million deaths in less than a year. When is the last time this country dealt with fatalities like that? WWII? The Civil War? What kinds of sacrifices did everyday Americans make then?

So should we cease production of garbage processed foods and forced people to exercise then? 

[08Dawg]

On 11/23/2020 at 8:24 PM, 17D_guy said:

The gov't here, in ND and Republican Gov's across the midwest have been suggesting wearing masks for months.  Doc's sure weren't making the policies here because the Gov's ignored their pleas for months for a mask mandate.  But the gov's damn near begged people to do it, and asking businesses to enforce it.  Why would the Governors change that now to a mandate?  Do they suddenly hate common sense, and got a case of the "COVID fear."  Might be because North Dakota had 9 ICU beds left in the whole state.

 

I do find it damned peculiar that Burgum issued the state wide mask mandate...right after he got re-elected.  Something is rotten in Denmark. 

[jazzdude]

Source for all past, present, and future data: CDC. I will state if different, but prefer to stick with CDC because that’s likely the most accurate/apolitical data we have. Since you clearly didn’t read everything I wrote, I’ll reiterate that I said multiple times these numbers are nationwide average for under 70, which makes up the vast majority of our population (~90%...technically 87% up to age 64, 2010 census brackets 65+ into one group; so clearly 69 and under accounts for more than 87%).
So yes, “disclaimer” clearly stated, and you are being deceptive/attempting to discredit data because it doesn’t fit your opinion, and hoping others haven’t actually read my posts and just assume your misrepresentation of such is accurate. Absolutely none of this is misleading or inaccurate, it is 100% factual straight from the CDC. I can’t help that you don’t like the numbers, but they are quite literally unemotional, apolitical, and as accurate as the CDC is capable of producing.
Now, to your age group point: making public policy and systemic level decisions based on 10% of the population is unsound my opinion. Why would you not make decisions based on how it affects the majority (in this specific case, we’re talking data points that represent a MASSIVE majority: ~90%). The 2019 average life expectancy was 78.8, so dying beyond that, regardless of cause, is beating life expectancy. That doesn’t mean their lives weren’t important to others, but unemotionally they have done better than average. Got it, cue bleeding heart; my point is emotional decision making is an awful failure when exercised at state and federal levels (and still usually bad even at a personal level). To make public policy based on 10% of the population who are already above average age, that negatively impacts the rest of the population, is emotional decision making at its worst and terribly short-sighted. 
 
Since you’ll probably respond with a demand for how I’d solve it - well, we should look at policy that aims to provide isolation OPTIONS for that age group, while allowing the other 90% access to the things they need to live life (and that includes things that contribute to mental well being). Let the 70+ demographic choose how to proceed - it’s their life and they should make the call, not the government. Maybe you don’t talk to enough 70+ year olds, because all of my family and friend’s families who are in that bracket are pissed and just want to be the ones who decide for themselves. Stop treating them like children who can’t make adult decisions.
But what about the hospitals? I agree, that’s an important question to ask/valid data point to take into account when making decisions. As of 14 Nov, COVID hospitalization rate is 228.7 per 100k population. Breaking it down to specifically COVID cases relative to number of those that end in hospitalization - 0.59%. All from the CDC, covering the entire age range.  I get it that in city X it is way worse than that, but its disingenuous to yell about that city while ignoring city Y that isn’t overrun at all. We’re talking state/federal level policy here, or at least I am. 

I want to lead off with that I don't necessarily find your solution bad, but it's worth digging deeper in your solution to get after assumptions.

What are your thoughts on anti-vaxxers? On one hand, it's their right to deny receiving any vaccinations or put anything in their body they do not want there. It's their choice. The flip side is that if they get a preventable disease, a $10 vaccine costs turns into thousands of dollars of hospital bills. Pretty clear cut argument can be made for "play stupid games, win stupid prizes, pay for it yourself." Or worse, they get sick, and in turn infect someone who could not take the vaccine, maybe they were allergic to an ingredient or have another condition that medically prevents them from receiving that vaccine. Who pays there? Our decisions and acceptance of risk don't occur in a vacuum, and have impacts on others. This get exacerbated in dense population centers.

On the age front, what duty does society/government have to old people that presumably have paid into the system? Should they be cared for because they've contributed, or should the level of medical care decrease at a certain point to make it available to a younger person (who may not have contributed as much in taxes etc)

Again, not saying you're wrong, but it's an interesting topic to discuss