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)