20-50 year olds with no pre-existing conditions are at low risk. The policy of shutting down the economy indefinitely is frightening on its own and we'll be dealing with the steep repercussions of that for many years. This is not sustainable.
So yes, they are low risk because they get priority in the hospitals. But when the hospital is full, what will happen to them?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-...
For more accurate data, 0 deaths have occurred in Italy for those under 30. Under 40, the few (9) are due to severe pre-existing conditions. Median age for fatality is 80 years old.
The exponential curve not only applies for rate of infection but seems to be holding true for age as well.
Edit: Source for Italy data here - https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Infograf...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/3...
Here is part of the problem: hospitalization and ICU don't necessarily mean the patient will die as long as we have the resources to hospitalize, intubate and medicate the patient.
Once we are out of respirators and the like, then the death rate with these patients will spike.
In Italy, we are seeing younger patients face graver conditions over time as the medical system gets overrun. [citation needed if someone help me dig one up? I can't remember where I read this]
this could be for a number of reasons though:
1. younger people feel invulnerable and go out more
2. underlying conditions in these people x a large population
3. overwhelmed hospitals
Likely, some combination of the above.
1. "Seeing younger patients facing graver conditions" - are we seeing excess mortality rates amongst the younger population in Italy as we speak (compared to say this time last year)?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/not-just-older-pe...
The virus grows fast so the question is what % of people of a particular category who have it will need an ICU/hospital to prevent their death.
The actual report says that people under 19 comprise 2% of hospitalizations -- I doubt it suddenly jumps to 38% for the next 5 years. It also says there are no known fatalities of people under 19.
I watched the news this morning and the broadcasters were panicked at a level I haven’t seen since 3/11. No meaningful measure have been put in place to curb the spread of the disease or strengthen healthcare infrastructure in Japan.
But Aso Taro, a leading politician of the ruling LDP, did announce his major response initiative: giving out certificates for Wagyu beef.
For example, all businesses with more than one person or with customer contact (including not-quite-employment situations like UPS or ride sharing) should take everyone’s temperature every day. Feverish or otherwise sick employees should be sent some, with pay, and there should be very strong disincentives for managers to encourage their employees to pretend to be healthy.
For another example, everyone on public transit or otherwise in a crowded place should wear a mask. If a real surgical mask is not available, a couple of layers of fabric should still help.
(Also, there wasn’t really any research needed to vaccinate against H1N1. It was just a matter of production. On the flip side, the flu mutates very quickly to evade immunity, whereas coronaviruses seem to mutate very very slowly. A COVID-19 vaccine that works* seems likely to provide protection essentially forever.)
* Early indications were that the obvious vaccine design for SARS made the disease worse, not better. That’s why we haven’t seen much excitement about inactivated COVID-19 vaccines.
- Canada: 250
- US: 27
- Germany: 9
Areas affected by SARS instituted targeted quarantines after detection and were able to contain the virus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2%80%932004_SARS_outbrea...
H1N1 was much less deadly than Covid-19 and spread less quickly. There were only ~18K confirmed deaths worldwide. (The estimated number of deaths was much higher at 150-600K. Basically, we confirmed it was less deadly than the seasonal flu so we didn't test everyone for it.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic
People are freaking out about Covid-19 because it spreads faster and is already stressing hospitals. Deaths and cases double every 2-3 days absent control measures. It can take 2 weeks to cause symptoms, so even if everything gets shut down now, we could have 25x as many hospitalizations/deaths than today. If smaller control measures aren't as effective, it'd take time to confirm and the peak would be multiples higher. H1N1 spread much slower so we could have responded much more leisurely if things started to go out of control.
It's almost as if people don't realise economies are reliant on people to contribute to them. You infect half the population you're going to have the same effect regardless. Only this way, we might not end up killing millions unnecessarily.
Also, the whole "young people and what not are at low risk" is anecdotal. We have no clue what the longterm, and passive ramifications of this virus are.
Economies and markets are a tool used by human's to achieve goals(ideally better quality of life), they are not the goal itself.
If an economy's purpose is to sustain humans, then letting it crash and burn puts those humans at risk.
It's a balancing act. We just can't forget that too much economic destruction will cost lives as well.
How much actual value(quality of life) is really being generated here? How much of it is hype, bandwagons, and charades? How sustainable is it and what safety nets are available when the bottom falls out? During this time you also think about how many people are telecommuting effectively right now, and how much downtown economies and real estate relies on everyone getting in their car, or on a bus/train going downtown each morning, and then the knock on effects this has on the environment.
A lot of people don't want to hear pessimism or realism, they want to see growth, growth and growth. Growth at all other costs can still result in the side effect of quality of life improvements, but unlimited economic growth has not been sustainable, and we've had quite a few boom and bust cycles the last 2 decades now. If you're designing the economy to continually boom & bust, it's hard not to expect eventual economic destruction. It's not a matter of "not letting it happen", it's a matter of that's how it's been designed. It's what it does.
If you do not have another solution that keeps people alive, kindly be quiet; you have nothing important to say.
EDIT: All complex decisions involve trade-offs. Right now, there's at least a few dozen more likely ways that people will die other than COVID-19. Heart disease, cancer, car accidents, even seasonal flu currently has a higher death count. You cannot lock down the economy for months on end, ratchet up unemployment to 30%+, and continue to feed people and keep their housing and shelter paid for. People's lives and livelihoods depend on the economy staying functional and healthy. It's not trivial. You have to find some way of moving forward without locking down all 320 million people. Maybe you look at areas of outbreak and you quarantine those areas on a piecewise basis. You ramp up testing, you use masks in public, you do something pro-active to keep the economy going. You provide assistance to those that are at high risk, but you let low risk individuals get back to work and keep the economy moving. The food you eat. The healthcare services you depend on. The military. The semi-truck drivers delivering products and services. The aircraft to transport products and people. All of that depends on the economy working.
Kindly keep the nasty comments about trying to dissuade me from discussing these important topics to yourself.
If you really think that the economic effects outweigh the loss of life this virus can and will cause, all I can do is be glad that all you have is your ability to express your opinion, not the ability to do anything about it. Thank god for that.
Finally, and yes I'm quoting myself here "If you do not have another solution that keeps people alive, kindly be quiet; you have nothing important to say."
> Kindly keep the nasty comments about trying to dissuade me from discussing these important topics to yourself.
This is absurd; you're responding to me. And this isn't a discussion, these are opinions, with no facts to back them up. I simply find these opinions disgusting, as they do not prioritize keeping people healthy and alive.
1. There are 20-50 year olds with pre-existing conditions such as asthma who are at higher risk. For example, a colleague on my team has asthma. Another colleague on my team has a husband who has asthma. As a Manager, I can't ask either of them to come into work.
2. What about 20-50 year olds who come in contact with 50+ year old or live together with them? They may be at low risk, but they will definitely spread the virus around more
It becomes quite complicated dealing with these things on a case by case basis.
Not low risk of getting hospitalized and having permanent or long-lasting lung damaged. Do you want compromised breathing for the next 5 years?