midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

You are correct on the facts, but I do not follow the logic.

According to the CDC. 20.5% of COVID-involved deaths happen to people age 65 or younger (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm). We are looking at about 325,000 total deaths in 9 months, so that would be a little over 60,000 deaths under age 65. That would be roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.

But... those numbers happened only after extraordinary efforts to contain the virus. If we just isolated the most at-risk, our case numbers among the younger group would be enormous. Even assuming the medical system could handle the increase (it could not) the death numbers in the under age 65 population would rise significantly. In essence, you are using the relative success of our restrictions (health wise) to argue that we should abandon the restrictions.

That does not take into account the huge logistical difficulties of "isolating" the at-risk during a period in which case counts would be dramatically higher,

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Of all the confirmed cases in NCAA athletics, why no hospitalizations?

---

Because that subset are literally the healthiest people in the world?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Of all the confirmed cases in NCAA athletics, why no hospitalizations?

---

Not too many college athletes have breathing issues.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

Well your beloved democrats across the country are setting a terrible example by violating their own precautions.

---

My post was non-partisan. You should try that for once in your life.

---

Their actions are indefensible so I understand why you desire that approach.

---

What is the point here? Because a few Democratic politicians ignored common sense precautions, we all should? Did your mom never give you the jumping off a bridge speech?

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

You are correct on the facts, but I do not follow the logic.

According to the CDC. 20.5% of COVID-involved deaths happen to people age 65 or younger (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm). We are looking at about 325,000 total deaths in 9 months, so that would be a little over 60,000 deaths under age 65. That would be roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.

But... those numbers happened only after extraordinary efforts to contain the virus. If we just isolated the most at-risk, our case numbers among the younger group would be enormous. Even assuming the medical system could handle the increase (it could not) the death numbers in the under age 65 population would rise significantly. In essence, you are using the relative success of our restrictions (health wise) to argue that we should abandon the restrictions.

That does not take into account the huge logistical difficulties of "isolating" the at-risk during a period in which case counts would be dramatically higher,

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

Your premise of "extraordinary efforts to contain the virus" ignores the collateral damage of deaths from overdose and suicide and assumes "containing" the virus was even possible. You also use "partisan" language of "cases" rather than "positive tests". It's important because we are doing substantially more testing than ever before. Positive tests have less correlation to deaths than hospitalizations. We've had a huge rise in positives tests.

We are experiencing a FIVE FOLD increase in "cases" (positive tests) than in April yet the current death rate is still lower.

I posted the following on another forum. Note I first used the under 45 age group (original OP) which accounts for about 3% of deaths. Where is your 325,000 deaths from? Once again, you seem to be assuming all Covid deaths are strictly Covid only. Plenty of evidence suggests "with" not "from."

Of the 270k+ deaths attributed (correctly or not) to Covid, 6.475 have been people under the age of 45.

515 under age 25 (covers most college players)
1812 from 25-34 (covers most pro players)
4663 from 35-44

This ASSUMES was correctly attributed to each death. Many had comorbidities - see links. I would guesstimate that less than 2,000 died from Covid alone and that's on the high side. For under age 25, all college athletes and school children, I would guesstimate less than a few hundred died solely from Covid.

There are 190 MILLION living in the US under the age of 45. More people have died from auto accidents, suicide and drug overdoses. We haven't stopped play for those. Maybe we should.

I know, I know. Morgues in El Paso are overflowing. I am talking about under age 45. Tell me the hospitalization rate of all these college athletes testing positive.

Btw, with so much testing going on can we make one change? Instead of announcing 5,000 people got Covid today (yikes!), can we agree to say 5,000 people tested positive for Covid today?

COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics (cdc.gov)

2019 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin (census.gov)

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

Well your beloved democrats across the country are setting a terrible example by violating their own precautions.

---

My post was non-partisan. You should try that for once in your life.

---

Their actions are indefensible so I understand why you desire that approach.

---

What is the point here? Because a few Democratic politicians ignored common sense precautions, we all should? Did your mom never give you the jumping off a bridge speech?

---

I'd expect someone who agrees with them to get angry when their party members violate their own precautions. I simply want to you to agree that these people should resign immediately.

I don't know if you have concerns about the effects of these precautions. You're asking a lot!
Millions of lives have been destroyed by them: Businesses that have been opened for decades are closing up. Suicide, depression, domestic abuse, alcoholism, substance abuse and so much more are a DIRECT result of what you're recommending.

Do you understand where people are coming from when they're told they need to sacrifice more?

Booray said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Of all the confirmed cases in NCAA athletics, why no hospitalizations?

---

Because that subset are literally the healthiest people in the world?

---

Athletes or not, look at the data for age. It's an age thing more than a health thing (though diabetes, obesity and some cardio issues play a key role).

Why do numerous African countries have such low death rates? Great healthcare systems or much younger population?

Age is a big factor. No, our death rates would not be enormous among young people for Covid 19.

Many of the poor countries don't have the obesity problem we have in the US from so much junk and processed food.

Too much misinformation here to keep up with. It's all been addressed many times, FWIW.

Why is Japan 11th in population yet 147th in death rate?

Could it be because they are also 151st in testing rate? This could imply they only test people they suspect of Covid.

If someone suffers a deadly stroke, we (USA) will test for Covid. A positive test means that person counts as a Covid death.

We have seen where some young people were initially counted as a Covid death after dying in an automobile accident.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

Well your beloved democrats across the country are setting a terrible example by violating their own precautions.

---

My post was non-partisan. You should try that for once in your life.

---

Their actions are indefensible so I understand why you desire that approach.

---

What is the point here? Because a few Democratic politicians ignored common sense precautions, we all should? Did your mom never give you the jumping off a bridge speech?

---

But it's his RIGHT to jump off a bridge!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Too much misinformation here to keep up with. It's all been addressed many times, FWIW.

---

Misinformation?

Hey, I'll dispute the data without offering any new data and imply it's all wrong because I've said so many times.

Links, facts, something, anything....besides your words?

midgett said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Too much misinformation here to keep up with. It's all been addressed many times, FWIW.

---

Misinformation?

Hey, I'll dispute the data without offering any new data and imply it's all wrong because I've said so many times.

Links, facts, something, anything....besides your words?

---

Been posting links and data all year. It's almost a moot point now, as the damage is done and the vaccine will arrive in a few months. A lot of people will die unnecessarily in the mean time.

midgett said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

You are correct on the facts, but I do not follow the logic.

According to the CDC. 20.5% of COVID-involved deaths happen to people age 65 or younger (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm). We are looking at about 325,000 total deaths in 9 months, so that would be a little over 60,000 deaths under age 65. That would be roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.

But... those numbers happened only after extraordinary efforts to contain the virus. If we just isolated the most at-risk, our case numbers among the younger group would be enormous. Even assuming the medical system could handle the increase (it could not) the death numbers in the under age 65 population would rise significantly. In essence, you are using the relative success of our restrictions (health wise) to argue that we should abandon the restrictions.

That does not take into account the huge logistical difficulties of "isolating" the at-risk during a period in which case counts would be dramatically higher,

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

Your premise of "extraordinary efforts to contain the virus" ignores the collateral damage of deaths from overdose and suicide and assumes "containing" the virus was even possible. You also use "partisan" language of "cases" rather than "positive tests". It's important because we are doing substantially more testing than ever before. Positive tests have less correlation to deaths than hospitalizations. We've had a huge rise in positives tests.

We are experiencing a FIVE FOLD increase in "cases" (positive tests) than in April yet the current death rate is still lower.

I posted the following on another forum. Note I first used the under 45 age group (original OP) which accounts for about 3% of deaths. Where is your 325,000 deaths from? Once again, you seem to be assuming all Covid deaths are strictly Covid only. Plenty of evidence suggests "with" not "from."

Of the 270k+ deaths attributed (correctly or not) to Covid, 6.475 have been people under the age of 45.

515 under age 25 (covers most college players)
1812 from 25-34 (covers most pro players)
4663 from 35-44

This ASSUMES was correctly attributed to each death. Many had comorbidities - see links. I would guesstimate that less than 2,000 died from Covid alone and that's on the high side. For under age 25, all college athletes and school children, I would guesstimate less than a few hundred died solely from Covid.

There are 190 MILLION living in the US under the age of 45. More people have died from auto accidents, suicide and drug overdoses. We haven't stopped play for those. Maybe we should.

I know, I know. Morgues in El Paso are overflowing. I am talking about under age 45. Tell me the hospitalization rate of all these college athletes testing positive.

Btw, with so much testing going on can we make one change? Instead of announcing 5,000 people got Covid today (yikes!), can we agree to say 5,000 people tested positive for Covid today?

COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics (cdc.gov)

2019 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin (census.gov)

---

1. Your stats are only meaningful if your argument is that people over age 45 are going to isolate. While the disease does not present a significant risk of death to those under age 45, there is no possible way to isolate everyone over age 45.

2. I choose my words carefully. I said COVID-involved deaths, because that is the exact phrase the CDC uses. It means the COVID contributed to the death, not that it was the sole cause. The idea that the correct measure of COVID's impact is the deaths for which it is the sole cause is just wrong. The great majority of death certificates have multiple causes. We don't minimize cancer, heart disease or the flu because there are other causes of death listed, COVID is no different.

3. "Cases" is not a partisan word. It has a specific medical meaning that is reflected in the statistics.

4. You are ignoring the primary point. If a huge portion of the population just goes about its business because people in that group are unlikely to die, the spread will: (1) kill a larger absolute number in the unlikely to die group; (2) overwhelm our medical system; and (3) inevitably spread to the vulnerable population.

You are looking for an easy fix where none exists.

https://news.yahoo.com/long-darkness-dawn-132745417.html

More gloom and doom. Even with the vaccines on the way. The media will keep this "crisis" in place as long as they are able.

This is much more about control at this point than health. This is bull*****

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

You are correct on the facts, but I do not follow the logic.

According to the CDC. 20.5% of COVID-involved deaths happen to people age 65 or younger (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm). We are looking at about 325,000 total deaths in 9 months, so that would be a little over 60,000 deaths under age 65. That would be roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.

But... those numbers happened only after extraordinary efforts to contain the virus. If we just isolated the most at-risk, our case numbers among the younger group would be enormous. Even assuming the medical system could handle the increase (it could not) the death numbers in the under age 65 population would rise significantly. In essence, you are using the relative success of our restrictions (health wise) to argue that we should abandon the restrictions.

That does not take into account the huge logistical difficulties of "isolating" the at-risk during a period in which case counts would be dramatically higher,

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

Your premise of "extraordinary efforts to contain the virus" ignores the collateral damage of deaths from overdose and suicide and assumes "containing" the virus was even possible. You also use "partisan" language of "cases" rather than "positive tests". It's important because we are doing substantially more testing than ever before. Positive tests have less correlation to deaths than hospitalizations. We've had a huge rise in positives tests.

We are experiencing a FIVE FOLD increase in "cases" (positive tests) than in April yet the current death rate is still lower.

I posted the following on another forum. Note I first used the under 45 age group (original OP) which accounts for about 3% of deaths. Where is your 325,000 deaths from? Once again, you seem to be assuming all Covid deaths are strictly Covid only. Plenty of evidence suggests "with" not "from."

Of the 270k+ deaths attributed (correctly or not) to Covid, 6.475 have been people under the age of 45.

515 under age 25 (covers most college players)
1812 from 25-34 (covers most pro players)
4663 from 35-44

This ASSUMES was correctly attributed to each death. Many had comorbidities - see links. I would guesstimate that less than 2,000 died from Covid alone and that's on the high side. For under age 25, all college athletes and school children, I would guesstimate less than a few hundred died solely from Covid.

There are 190 MILLION living in the US under the age of 45. More people have died from auto accidents, suicide and drug overdoses. We haven't stopped play for those. Maybe we should.

I know, I know. Morgues in El Paso are overflowing. I am talking about under age 45. Tell me the hospitalization rate of all these college athletes testing positive.

Btw, with so much testing going on can we make one change? Instead of announcing 5,000 people got Covid today (yikes!), can we agree to say 5,000 people tested positive for Covid today?

COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics (cdc.gov)

2019 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin (census.gov)

---

1. Your stats are only meaningful if your argument is that people over age 45 are going to isolate. While the disease does not present a significant risk of death to those under age 45, there is no possible way to isolate everyone over age 45.

2. I choose my words carefully. I said COVID-involved deaths, because that is the exact phrase the CDC uses. It means the COVID contributed to the death, not that it was the sole cause. The idea that the correct measure of COVID's impact is the deaths for which it is the sole cause is just wrong. The great majority of death certificates have multiple causes. We don't minimize cancer, heart disease or the flu because there are other causes of death listed, COVID is no different.

3. "Cases" is not a partisan word. It has a specific medical meaning that is reflected in the statistics.

4. You are ignoring the primary point. If a huge portion of the population just goes about its business because people in that group are unlikely to die, the spread will: (1) kill a larger absolute number in the unlikely to die group; (2) overwhelm our medical system; and (3) inevitably spread to the vulnerable population.

You are looking for an easy fix where none exists.

---

You are looking to impact all lives with some devastating collateral damage. There are a larger absolute dying from other causes due to lockdowns and limiting hospital admissions in the spring. You focus on the trees and ignore the forest.

Go technical on "cases". It is still positive tests and we are testing much more.

No, some deaths involved Covid when Covid was not a contributing cause. Many who died with Covid but with other causes were asymptomatic from Covid.

Please give me links on the efficacy of non-N95 masks. Are you wearing a N95 mask EVERY TIME you are in public? Are you socially distancing from EVERYONE not living in your house? Are you testing regularly? These are your common sense solutions. Only the second one has any validity unless you are wearing a N95 mask at all times outside your home.

It's not easy solutions but it is common sense solutions based on the data to protect as many people as possible and not just from Covid.

booray, lowery,

How come in the Denmark mask study the results showed those wearing masks were contracting the virus the same as those who weren't wearing masks?

midgett said:

---

booray, lowery,

How come in the Denmark mask study the results showed those wearing masks were contracting the virus the same as those who weren't wearing masks?

---

Because the virus goes through cloth and polyester like air and doesn't block a single micron.

midgett said:

---

booray, lowery,

How come in the Denmark mask study the results showed those wearing masks were contracting the virus the same as those who weren't wearing masks?

---

I don't know what study you are referring to, but you can't cherry-pick the one that supports your belief. The great weight of evidence says that masks are helpful. Here is a good article explaining it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

booray, lowery,

How come in the Denmark mask study the results showed those wearing masks were contracting the virus the same as those who weren't wearing masks?

---

I don't know what study you are referring to, but you can't cherry-pick the one that supports your belief. The great weight of evidence says that masks are helpful. Here is a good article explaining it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

---

Do you have any data that people aren't wearing masks?

midgett said:

---

booray, lowery,

How come in the Denmark mask study the results showed those wearing masks were contracting the virus the same as those who weren't wearing masks?

---

They didn't. The study was only designed to detect a greater than 50% protective effect for the wearer. The results are consistent with about a 20% protective effect. The larger effect, and main benefit, has always been source control (i.e. protecting people other than the wearer), which the Danish study didn't measure at all. Both the lead author and the publisher of the study have clarified that it confirms the usefulness of masks:

"The DANMASK-19 findings reinforce the importance of social distancing and hygiene measures and suggest that masks likely need to be worn by most if not all people to reduce community infection rates, which in turn will protect individuals. In the context of observational studies that show lower SARS-CoV-2 transmission in communities with widespread mask wearing and the absence of serious adverse health effects of wearing masks, the results of this trial should motivate widespread mask wearing to protect our communities and thereby ourselves while we await more definitive evidence during this pandemic."

midgett said:

---

Why is Japan 11th in population yet 147th in death rate?

Could it be because they are also 151st in testing rate? This could imply they only test people they suspect of Covid.

If someone suffers a deadly stroke, we (USA) will test for Covid. A positive test means that person counts as a Covid death.

We have seen where some young people were initially counted as a Covid death after dying in an automobile accident.

---

people in japan follow the rules. IQ in that region is among the highest

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

No signs of distress in Houston. ICU never exceeded 50% of phase 2 at the peak.

midgett said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

You are correct on the facts, but I do not follow the logic.

According to the CDC. 20.5% of COVID-involved deaths happen to people age 65 or younger (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm). We are looking at about 325,000 total deaths in 9 months, so that would be a little over 60,000 deaths under age 65. That would be roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.

But... those numbers happened only after extraordinary efforts to contain the virus. If we just isolated the most at-risk, our case numbers among the younger group would be enormous. Even assuming the medical system could handle the increase (it could not) the death numbers in the under age 65 population would rise significantly. In essence, you are using the relative success of our restrictions (health wise) to argue that we should abandon the restrictions.

That does not take into account the huge logistical difficulties of "isolating" the at-risk during a period in which case counts would be dramatically higher,

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

Your premise of "extraordinary efforts to contain the virus" ignores the collateral damage of deaths from overdose and suicide and assumes "containing" the virus was even possible. You also use "partisan" language of "cases" rather than "positive tests". It's important because we are doing substantially more testing than ever before. Positive tests have less correlation to deaths than hospitalizations. We've had a huge rise in positives tests.

We are experiencing a FIVE FOLD increase in "cases" (positive tests) than in April yet the current death rate is still lower.

I posted the following on another forum. Note I first used the under 45 age group (original OP) which accounts for about 3% of deaths. Where is your 325,000 deaths from? Once again, you seem to be assuming all Covid deaths are strictly Covid only. Plenty of evidence suggests "with" not "from."

Of the 270k+ deaths attributed (correctly or not) to Covid, 6.475 have been people under the age of 45.

515 under age 25 (covers most college players)
1812 from 25-34 (covers most pro players)
4663 from 35-44

This ASSUMES was correctly attributed to each death. Many had comorbidities - see links. I would guesstimate that less than 2,000 died from Covid alone and that's on the high side. For under age 25, all college athletes and school children, I would guesstimate less than a few hundred died solely from Covid.

There are 190 MILLION living in the US under the age of 45. More people have died from auto accidents, suicide and drug overdoses. We haven't stopped play for those. Maybe we should.

I know, I know. Morgues in El Paso are overflowing. I am talking about under age 45. Tell me the hospitalization rate of all these college athletes testing positive.

Btw, with so much testing going on can we make one change? Instead of announcing 5,000 people got Covid today (yikes!), can we agree to say 5,000 people tested positive for Covid today?

COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics (cdc.gov)

2019 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin (census.gov)

---

1. Your stats are only meaningful if your argument is that people over age 45 are going to isolate. While the disease does not present a significant risk of death to those under age 45, there is no possible way to isolate everyone over age 45.

2. I choose my words carefully. I said COVID-involved deaths, because that is the exact phrase the CDC uses. It means the COVID contributed to the death, not that it was the sole cause. The idea that the correct measure of COVID's impact is the deaths for which it is the sole cause is just wrong. The great majority of death certificates have multiple causes. We don't minimize cancer, heart disease or the flu because there are other causes of death listed, COVID is no different.

3. "Cases" is not a partisan word. It has a specific medical meaning that is reflected in the statistics.

4. You are ignoring the primary point. If a huge portion of the population just goes about its business because people in that group are unlikely to die, the spread will: (1) kill a larger absolute number in the unlikely to die group; (2) overwhelm our medical system; and (3) inevitably spread to the vulnerable population.

You are looking for an easy fix where none exists.

---

You are looking to impact all lives with some devastating collateral damage. There are a larger absolute dying from other causes due to lockdowns and limiting hospital admissions in the spring. You focus on the trees and ignore the forest.

Go technical on "cases". It is still positive tests and we are testing much more.

No, some deaths involved Covid when Covid was not a contributing cause. Many who died with Covid but with other causes were asymptomatic from Covid.

Please give me links on the efficacy of non-N95 masks. Are you wearing a N95 mask EVERY TIME you are in public? Are you socially distancing from EVERYONE not living in your house? Are you testing regularly? These are your common sense solutions. Only the second one has any validity unless you are wearing a N95 mask at all times outside your home.

It's not easy solutions but it is common sense solutions based on the data to protect as many people as possible and not just from Covid.

---

Midgett,

I love you, but that is a rehash of conspiracy theories.

I know Brett Giroir, our testing czar. When he says that the upsurge in cases is much more than increased testing, I believe him.

If COVID did not contribute to the death, it should not be listed on the death certificate. I am sure that it has happened, but the idea that we are willy-nilly putting COVID down on death certificates is unsupported.

There are literally hundreds of studies now that show masks to be effective; I linked the article explaining that in the reply above.

COVID spreads easily and hits "old people" really hard, younger people will almost certainly survive. The idea that we can just isolate "old people" successfully against a disease that spread this easily and at the same time allow younger people to lead a normal life is just not viable. Don't take my word for it-there is a reason all the epidemiologists and public health officials are pushing restrictions; its not becuase they want to install a fascist state. .

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

booray, lowery,

How come in the Denmark mask study the results showed those wearing masks were contracting the virus the same as those who weren't wearing masks?

---

I don't know what study you are referring to, but you can't cherry-pick the one that supports your belief. The great weight of evidence says that masks are helpful. Here is a good article explaining it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

---

Do you have any data that people aren't wearing masks?

---

No. I don't spend my day researching COVID.

The great majority of doctors and scientists say masks are helpful The physics makes sense. People should wear them. its not that difficult/

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

You are correct on the facts, but I do not follow the logic.

According to the CDC. 20.5% of COVID-involved deaths happen to people age 65 or younger (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm). We are looking at about 325,000 total deaths in 9 months, so that would be a little over 60,000 deaths under age 65. That would be roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.

But... those numbers happened only after extraordinary efforts to contain the virus. If we just isolated the most at-risk, our case numbers among the younger group would be enormous. Even assuming the medical system could handle the increase (it could not) the death numbers in the under age 65 population would rise significantly. In essence, you are using the relative success of our restrictions (health wise) to argue that we should abandon the restrictions.

That does not take into account the huge logistical difficulties of "isolating" the at-risk during a period in which case counts would be dramatically higher,

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

I thought we were about at 275,000 deaths not 325,000. Way too many either way.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

booray, lowery,

How come in the Denmark mask study the results showed those wearing masks were contracting the virus the same as those who weren't wearing masks?

---

I don't know what study you are referring to, but you can't cherry-pick the one that supports your belief. The great weight of evidence says that masks are helpful. Here is a good article explaining it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

---

Do you have any data that people aren't wearing masks?

---

No. I don't spend my day researching COVID.

The great majority of doctors and scientists say masks are helpful The physics makes sense. People should wear them. its not that difficult/

---

Yea, wearing a mask keeps your spit from flying all over the place. Seems like common sense to wear really.

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

booray, lowery,

How come in the Denmark mask study the results showed those wearing masks were contracting the virus the same as those who weren't wearing masks?

---

I don't know what study you are referring to, but you can't cherry-pick the one that supports your belief. The great weight of evidence says that masks are helpful. Here is a good article explaining it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

---

booray, you cherry pick this one which is downright shocking considering you usually link to something worthy to click and read.

"To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease."

(science supports!!)

"Even the question of what kinds of study would provide definitive proof that they work is hard to answer."

(But you just state "to be clear, the science supports...)

"That raised the now contentious question: should members of the public bother wearing basic surgical masks or cloth masks? If so, under what conditions? "Those are the things we normally [sort out] in clinical trials," says Kate Grabowski, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. "But we just didn't have time for that."

So, scientists have relied on observational and laboratory studies. There is also indirect evidence from other infectious diseases. "If you look at any one paper it's not a slam dunk. But, taken all together, I'm convinced that they are working," says Grabowski."

(We didn't have time but relay on observational and lab studies. "taken all together, I'm convinced that they are working". Did the dude even listen to his previous comments?)

(From there it is just anecdotal.)

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

This study had SCIENTISTS looking at blood from donors in December 2019. About 2% had antibodies for Covid 19.

This suggests Covid 19 was in the US prior to January 2020. As Alex Berenson tweeted, "remember how the hospitals were overrun last year?"

Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Covid 19 is a serious and dangerous virus for old people and those with comorbidities. Otherwise, especially for the under 45 and even under 60 crowd, this is not a high risk virus but similar to a flu season.

In before Truett says we need to shutdown the world to protect those at risk from us. No, they should isolate as, unfortunately, many in ASLs are forced to do.

---

You are correct on the facts, but I do not follow the logic.

According to the CDC. 20.5% of COVID-involved deaths happen to people age 65 or younger (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm). We are looking at about 325,000 total deaths in 9 months, so that would be a little over 60,000 deaths under age 65. That would be roughly equivalent to a really bad flu year.

But... those numbers happened only after extraordinary efforts to contain the virus. If we just isolated the most at-risk, our case numbers among the younger group would be enormous. Even assuming the medical system could handle the increase (it could not) the death numbers in the under age 65 population would rise significantly. In essence, you are using the relative success of our restrictions (health wise) to argue that we should abandon the restrictions.

That does not take into account the huge logistical difficulties of "isolating" the at-risk during a period in which case counts would be dramatically higher,

There is just no easy answer here. Unfortunately, we are making it even more difficult to manage by rejecting common sense precautions.

---

Your premise of "extraordinary efforts to contain the virus" ignores the collateral damage of deaths from overdose and suicide and assumes "containing" the virus was even possible. You also use "partisan" language of "cases" rather than "positive tests". It's important because we are doing substantially more testing than ever before. Positive tests have less correlation to deaths than hospitalizations. We've had a huge rise in positives tests.

We are experiencing a FIVE FOLD increase in "cases" (positive tests) than in April yet the current death rate is still lower.

I posted the following on another forum. Note I first used the under 45 age group (original OP) which accounts for about 3% of deaths. Where is your 325,000 deaths from? Once again, you seem to be assuming all Covid deaths are strictly Covid only. Plenty of evidence suggests "with" not "from."

Of the 270k+ deaths attributed (correctly or not) to Covid, 6.475 have been people under the age of 45.

515 under age 25 (covers most college players)
1812 from 25-34 (covers most pro players)
4663 from 35-44

This ASSUMES was correctly attributed to each death. Many had comorbidities - see links. I would guesstimate that less than 2,000 died from Covid alone and that's on the high side. For under age 25, all college athletes and school children, I would guesstimate less than a few hundred died solely from Covid.

There are 190 MILLION living in the US under the age of 45. More people have died from auto accidents, suicide and drug overdoses. We haven't stopped play for those. Maybe we should.

I know, I know. Morgues in El Paso are overflowing. I am talking about under age 45. Tell me the hospitalization rate of all these college athletes testing positive.

Btw, with so much testing going on can we make one change? Instead of announcing 5,000 people got Covid today (yikes!), can we agree to say 5,000 people tested positive for Covid today?

COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics (cdc.gov)

2019 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin (census.gov)

---

1. Your stats are only meaningful if your argument is that people over age 45 are going to isolate. While the disease does not present a significant risk of death to those under age 45, there is no possible way to isolate everyone over age 45.

2. I choose my words carefully. I said COVID-involved deaths, because that is the exact phrase the CDC uses. It means the COVID contributed to the death, not that it was the sole cause. The idea that the correct measure of COVID's impact is the deaths for which it is the sole cause is just wrong. The great majority of death certificates have multiple causes. We don't minimize cancer, heart disease or the flu because there are other causes of death listed, COVID is no different.

3. "Cases" is not a partisan word. It has a specific medical meaning that is reflected in the statistics.

4. You are ignoring the primary point. If a huge portion of the population just goes about its business because people in that group are unlikely to die, the spread will: (1) kill a larger absolute number in the unlikely to die group; (2) overwhelm our medical system; and (3) inevitably spread to the vulnerable population.

You are looking for an easy fix where none exists.

---

You are looking to impact all lives with some devastating collateral damage. There are a larger absolute dying from other causes due to lockdowns and limiting hospital admissions in the spring. You focus on the trees and ignore the forest.

Go technical on "cases". It is still positive tests and we are testing much more.

No, some deaths involved Covid when Covid was not a contributing cause. Many who died with Covid but with other causes were asymptomatic from Covid.

Please give me links on the efficacy of non-N95 masks. Are you wearing a N95 mask EVERY TIME you are in public? Are you socially distancing from EVERYONE not living in your house? Are you testing regularly? These are your common sense solutions. Only the second one has any validity unless you are wearing a N95 mask at all times outside your home.

It's not easy solutions but it is common sense solutions based on the data to protect as many people as possible and not just from Covid.

---

Midgett,

I love you, but that is a rehash of conspiracy theories.

I know Brett Giroir, our testing czar. When he says that the upsurge in cases is much more than increased testing, I believe him.

If COVID did not contribute to the death, it should not be listed on the death certificate. I am sure that it has happened, but the idea that we are willy-nilly putting COVID down on death certificates is unsupported.

There are literally hundreds of studies now that show masks to be effective; I linked the article explaining that in the reply above.

COVID spreads easily and hits "old people" really hard, younger people will almost certainly survive. The idea that we can just isolate "old people" successfully against a disease that spread this easily and at the same time allow younger people to lead a normal life is just not viable. Don't take my word for it-there is a reason all the epidemiologists and public health officials are pushing restrictions; its not becuase they want to install a fascist state. .

---

Literally hundreds?!?

Covid is a political hoax. Am not saying it is not a problem, but the media is way way way overplaying their hand on this. I will never take the vaccine due to information received in regard to REAL purpose of it. If China started it then they knew a vaccine would be required and they are funding the nefarious aspects of it w/o the manufacturers even knowing what they are really doing. DO NOT TAKE IT. It's not worth the price you will pay in the long run.

Remember in the end days Jesus said even the most "elect" shall be deceived. This is all part of the The Great Reset vs. The Great Awakening. It could spell doom for you. I said "could" not would. So pray for the Holy Spirit will guide your decisions wisely. If you do you will make the right decisions.

The war has started. Stay strong!