We’ve turned into a nation of Karens. Rather than isolate our vulnerable- the elderly, the sick, the homeless- our country decided to tank our economy and put a whole lot more people at risk. FFS, Hawaii has something like a 30% unemployment rate. The country is close to 15%. What are the Karens going to do when that 15% grows to 20/25% and those people are starving and desperate?

(05-10-2020 06:53 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Because the faculty, and staff are 20-year olds

We can expand ... for people in the 50-59 age range, the mortality factor is about 1 in 180. But again, that's for all people, when in fact the big majority of those who have died in that age range have had underlying conditions.

For a healthy person, it is likely a fraction of that, maybe 1 in 500.

So again ... those over 60 and anyone with diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, or severe obesity, stay home ... everyone else, go about your business.

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

(05-10-2020 06:52 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Studies seem to indicate that if you are around 21 years old, your chances of dying of CV19 once infected are extremely small, about 1 in 300. And for most its actually lower than that, because of the relatively small number of such people who have died, most had significant underlying health conditions - cancer, asthma, heart disease, morbid obesity, or diabetes. The article linked below says people with an underlying condition were 10x more likely to die than those without. Nobody knows the true death risk for the normal, healthy 20 year old, but it's very, very small. We do know of the first 23,000 Americans who died of CV, all of 23 were under 24 years of age. And most of those had an underlying condition.

IOW's, extremely, small.

And yet, a recent Gallup Poll said that 78% of people aged 18-44 are "very or somewhat worried" about catching CV19. The fear seems to be all out of proportion to the reality.

So ... why are campuses locked down? Why is society locked down? The proper policy seems to be: If you have diabetes, cancer, heart disease, or asthma, or are over 65, self-isolate. Places like nursing homes should be on extreme lockdown with extreme sanitation and social distancing measures. The rest of America, go about your business. Play college football games in front of 100,000 fans.

What am I missing here? Not a rhetorical question. If I'm wrong here, help me out.

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

Not to protect them, but to protect their grandparents and the old faculty.

But .... how is that incompatible with what I suggested? Grandparents and anyone with a serious underling health condition (cancer, diabetes, morbid obesity, asthma) self-isolate. But how does it help those people if the rest of society shuts down?

A bunch of 20 year olds socializing together in public clubs, restaurants, or on campus has nothing to do with 70 year old grandma who also has diabetes, if grandma is in isolation.

(05-10-2020 07:40 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Okay. Let’s say there are 20,000 students on campus and because they are allowed to operate as normal, that 60% catch the virus. It is highly contagious. A 60% infection rate means 12,000 students have the virus. If 1 in 300 at around the age of 21 are dying from the virus, that would be a total of 40 students passing away. I am not sure that would be acceptable to a university or the parents.

Because this virus is very contagious, those 12,000 students are spreading the virus around the campus and community. Because this virus is new, nobody really knows what the long term effects of the virus might be. It might be like any other virus and you are fine once it is gone. Also, there is no scientific proof that there is “herd immunity” and you won’t catch it again.

As I indicated, the true death rate among 21 year olds isn't 1 in 300, because that rate includes deaths among those with underlying conditions, in which the bulk of that 'risk' is stored. Such people are 10x more likely to die at any age. So for a healthy 21 year old, the risk is probably more like 1 in 1000, or less. That's a vanishingly small risk factor, a kid is far more likely to die in an auto accident coming to or from a game than from catching CV19 at the game.

And again, even if 12,000 are spreading it around the community, what does it matter if the truly vulnerable - those 65 or older or with underlying conditions - are in isolation?

Nationally, the mortality rate for 20 to 29 year olds is 0.2 percent of those who get it. Chances are the younger you are in that age group, the lower your mortality rate is, but let's keep it a constant 0.2 throughout the 20 to 29 age group (it's also 0.2 in 10 to 19 age group). That's 1 in 500, not 1 in 1000. And yes, that's not even taking into account underlying conditions or where the deaths of young people have occurred (the chances of getting a serious case of this on a NYC campus is a hell of a lot higher than the chances of getting a serious strain at a big college in a state where the outbreaks have mostly been contained.

But again, that's a very low rate and like you said, a college student is more likely to die from an auto accident or binge drinking-related accident or suicide, or whatever. But this is a very contagious virus, and I don't believe the schools should be criticized for what they've done this spring to mitigate things.

The bigger question is what would the rates be right now if we hadn't closed down the campus this spring? It appears just about every campus is going to be open again in the fall with some new rules in place to prevent widespread re-occurrences. My guess is small campus classes will continue as normal while the bigger classes (200 to 300 students in a class) will be spread out over several days with some kids there in person and some taking the classes online in their dorms or libraries or wherever. Students will likely be asked to wear masks on most campuses in classrooms - at least in areas that have been hit harder than others. There will be certainly other restrictions in place that the students won't like (clamping down on parties for instance).

And the biggest question (perhaps) is what happens to college athletics?

In any regard, the fall semester will be the guide to what happens in the winter. If nothing new emerges of concern, winter semesters may be opened up a bit more, continue on with precautions, or be moved back to online only in a worst case scenario.

But I do think for those who are trying to say this is an old person's disease, look at what is happening in NYC to 5-year-olds and younger, with the weird liver disease (? might be a different organ actually ?) that has killed 5 already and hospitalized like 60 small kids. There are still a lot of elements to Covid 19 we know nothing about.

(05-11-2020 08:19 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Nationally, the mortality rate for 20 to 29 year olds is 0.2 percent of those who get it. Chances are the younger you are in that age group, the lower your mortality rate is, but let's keep it a constant 0.2 throughout the 20 to 29 age group (it's also 0.2 in 10 to 19 age group). That's 1 in 500, not 1 in 1000. And yes, that's not even taking into account underlying conditions or where the deaths of young people have occurred (the chances of getting a serious case of this on a NYC campus is a hell of a lot higher than the chances of getting a serious strain at a big college in a state where the outbreaks have mostly been contained.

But again, that's a very low rate and like you said, a college student is more likely to die from an auto accident or binge drinking-related accident or suicide, or whatever. But this is a very contagious virus, and I don't believe the schools should be criticized for what they've done this spring to mitigate things.

The bigger question is what would the rates be right now if we hadn't closed down the campus this spring? It appears just about every campus is going to be open again in the fall with some new rules in place to prevent widespread re-occurrences. My guess is small campus classes will continue as normal while the bigger classes (200 to 300 students in a class) will be spread out over several days with some kids there in person and some taking the classes online in their dorms or libraries or wherever. Students will likely be asked to wear masks on most campuses in classrooms - at least in areas that have been hit harder than others. There will be certainly other restrictions in place that the students won't like (clamping down on parties for instance).

And the biggest question (perhaps) is what happens to college athletics?

In any regard, the fall semester will be the guide to what happens in the winter. If nothing new emerges of concern, winter semesters may be opened up a bit more, continue on with precautions, or be moved back to online only in a worst case scenario.

But I do think for those who are trying to say this is an old person's disease, look at what is happening in NYC to 5-year-olds and younger, with the weird liver disease (? might be a different organ actually ?) that has killed 5 already and hospitalized like 60 small kids. There are still a lot of elements to Covid 19 we know nothing about.

*of those who tested positive. Maybe 60 million in the US have had it and only a tiny fraction get symptoms and go to a hospital or clinic to get tested.

(05-10-2020 10:45 PM)banker Wrote:  Odd, there are a lot of posters in this thread that I don't recognize as usual posters and they all have the exact same position on this. Just an observation.

It was most likely moved from another board to here when it became clear it was not related to that institution/conference, but rather to politics in general.

Because liberals and the liberal agenda are paramount...

(05-11-2020 08:29 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:19 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Nationally, the mortality rate for 20 to 29 year olds is 0.2 percent of those who get it. Chances are the younger you are in that age group, the lower your mortality rate is, but let's keep it a constant 0.2 throughout the 20 to 29 age group (it's also 0.2 in 10 to 19 age group). That's 1 in 500, not 1 in 1000. And yes, that's not even taking into account underlying conditions or where the deaths of young people have occurred (the chances of getting a serious case of this on a NYC campus is a hell of a lot higher than the chances of getting a serious strain at a big college in a state where the outbreaks have mostly been contained.

But again, that's a very low rate and like you said, a college student is more likely to die from an auto accident or binge drinking-related accident or suicide, or whatever. But this is a very contagious virus, and I don't believe the schools should be criticized for what they've done this spring to mitigate things.

The bigger question is what would the rates be right now if we hadn't closed down the campus this spring? It appears just about every campus is going to be open again in the fall with some new rules in place to prevent widespread re-occurrences. My guess is small campus classes will continue as normal while the bigger classes (200 to 300 students in a class) will be spread out over several days with some kids there in person and some taking the classes online in their dorms or libraries or wherever. Students will likely be asked to wear masks on most campuses in classrooms - at least in areas that have been hit harder than others. There will be certainly other restrictions in place that the students won't like (clamping down on parties for instance).

And the biggest question (perhaps) is what happens to college athletics?

In any regard, the fall semester will be the guide to what happens in the winter. If nothing new emerges of concern, winter semesters may be opened up a bit more, continue on with precautions, or be moved back to online only in a worst case scenario.

But I do think for those who are trying to say this is an old person's disease, look at what is happening in NYC to 5-year-olds and younger, with the weird liver disease (? might be a different organ actually ?) that has killed 5 already and hospitalized like 60 small kids. There are still a lot of elements to Covid 19 we know nothing about.

*of those who tested positive. Maybe 60 million in the US have had it and only a tiny fraction get symptoms and go to a hospital or clinic to get tested.

Actually we're both sort of wrong (me more than you though). The mortality rate strictly deals with people who have died. That 0.2 percent is the rate of deaths of 20 to 29-year-olds among people who have died period. That's not going to change regardless of the number of people tested.

0.2 percent will equate to 200 deaths when we get to 100,000 deaths as a country. Which will probably be some time in June. That's still a minor number in the grand scale of things, and I'd bet you a lot of money way more than 200 20 to 29-year-olds will have died of car accidents or drug overdoses in the first half of the year.

I still am in the group of people who feel like we haven't gone overboard in our safety guidelines. And that's it's time to open up the country (generally in the method it's being done) in most of the country, outside of big cities along the eastern seaboard, Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, etc.

(05-11-2020 06:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 07:40 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Okay. Let’s say there are 20,000 students on campus and because they are allowed to operate as normal, that 60% catch the virus. It is highly contagious. A 60% infection rate means 12,000 students have the virus. If 1 in 300 at around the age of 21 are dying from the virus, that would be a total of 40 students passing away. I am not sure that would be acceptable to a university or the parents.

Because this virus is very contagious, those 12,000 students are spreading the virus around the campus and community. Because this virus is new, nobody really knows what the long term effects of the virus might be. It might be like any other virus and you are fine once it is gone. Also, there is no scientific proof that there is “herd immunity” and you won’t catch it again.

As I indicated, the true death rate among 21 year olds isn't 1 in 300, because that rate includes deaths among those with underlying conditions, in which the bulk of that 'risk' is stored. Such people are 10x more likely to die at any age. So for a healthy 21 year old, the risk is probably more like 1 in 1000, or less. That's a vanishingly small risk factor, a kid is far more likely to die in an auto accident coming to or from a game than from catching CV19 at the game.

And again, even if 12,000 are spreading it around the community, what does it matter if the truly vulnerable - those 65 or older or with underlying conditions - are in isolation?

How do they get their food? Their mail? Do they isolate from family? What about caregivers, that's one of the reasons it is spreading around nursing homes. If its everywhere it increases the risk for those in isolation as well.

(05-11-2020 09:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 06:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 07:40 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Okay. Let’s say there are 20,000 students on campus and because they are allowed to operate as normal, that 60% catch the virus. It is highly contagious. A 60% infection rate means 12,000 students have the virus. If 1 in 300 at around the age of 21 are dying from the virus, that would be a total of 40 students passing away. I am not sure that would be acceptable to a university or the parents.

Because this virus is very contagious, those 12,000 students are spreading the virus around the campus and community. Because this virus is new, nobody really knows what the long term effects of the virus might be. It might be like any other virus and you are fine once it is gone. Also, there is no scientific proof that there is “herd immunity” and you won’t catch it again.

As I indicated, the true death rate among 21 year olds isn't 1 in 300, because that rate includes deaths among those with underlying conditions, in which the bulk of that 'risk' is stored. Such people are 10x more likely to die at any age. So for a healthy 21 year old, the risk is probably more like 1 in 1000, or less. That's a vanishingly small risk factor, a kid is far more likely to die in an auto accident coming to or from a game than from catching CV19 at the game.

And again, even if 12,000 are spreading it around the community, what does it matter if the truly vulnerable - those 65 or older or with underlying conditions - are in isolation?

How do they get their food? Their mail? Do they isolate from family? What about caregivers, that's one of the reasons it is spreading around nursing homes. If its everywhere it increases the risk for those in isolation as well.

My point is, shutting the "country" down, costing trillions in lost economic activity, and limiting the movement and activities of healthy people doesn't make the at-risk people much safer. If I am 65 with diabetes, I need to isolate. That's true whether 20 year olds are isolating or running about.

As I said, I agree, in nursing homes there needs to be extreme action taken in terms of isolation and sanitation with regards to everyone there, caregivers, residents, everyone. They need to have those Chinese doctors in astronaut suits tapping the forehead for temperature of anyone from outside coming in to the nursing home.

(05-10-2020 10:45 PM)banker Wrote:  Odd, there are a lot of posters in this thread that I don't recognize as usual posters and they all have the exact same position on this. Just an observation.

Absolute safety is a pipe dream. Just a note that over 1,800 college students die every year from alcohol related causes, yet I haven't seen a push to limit alcohol to those 24 and older. College campuses are annual hotbeds for influenza and less than 25% of students typically get a flu shot. Why have campuses not been closed to prevent this annual spread that impacts 20 to 60 million Americans annually and kills 30,000 to 80,000 each year? Those students go home and spread it to their more vunerable younger and older family members.

I was wondering about all the strange names too. I bet this thread was on a sports board or some other forum and was moved here.

(05-10-2020 08:38 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Studies seem to indicate that if you are around 21 years old, your chances of dying of CV19 once infected are extremely small, about 1 in 300. ...

First, the mortality rate is not an entirely exogenous. If we swamp ICU capacity, then many people in serious condition who could be saved with oxygen or in critical condition who could be saved with life support will die. And there is no evidence at this point that the rate of people of different ages in serious and critical condition is substantially different, it's rather the rate of those who survive being in serious and critical condition when given proper medical care.

Indeed, since they are less likely to die while being cared for, a young person in serious or critical condition will on average occupy the resources of the ICU for longer than the typical 80 year old.

If triage is done the way that it was done in northern Italy when they overwhelmed their ICU capacity, the younger patients will be given priority due to "years of life saved" logic, so the infections of young people won't show up in a spike in deaths of younger people in that case, but in a spike in deaths of older people who don't have access to ICU capacity being used to keep young people alive.

Second, assuming that there ARE no serious long term consequences other than death because the disease is too recent for us to have evidence about long term consequences other than death is breathtaking in its recklessness. And young people are those who will have to live with any long term consequences for the longest.

This...and this doesn't even touch on potentially life wrecking medical bills if the 20 something is admitted to the hospital for any length of time.