Corona Virus/COVID19: Local Impact

[CBaker]

Slightly skimming so that might be adding to the confusion....

But what is with all of the stats being thrown around that all the deaths are coming from 65+? Wasn't that known since day one? Or has the media been stating otherwise or something making people upset about it? I have no idea, I don't watch the news on purpose, but I could have sworn basically everyone has been saying this preys mostly on 65+ this whole time.

Just seems like a weird argument against the whole thing now, since that was always known.

 

[Desmond]

Let’s just scrap the whole Republic of States thing that we have going... Right? Very fascist of you...

Very reactionary of you when you assume. Oy, vey ...

I explained a better way in another post.

Stop the personal attacks, please.

 

[JDax]

Slightly skimming so that might be adding to the confusion....

But what is with all of the stats being thrown around that all the deaths are coming from 65+? Wasn't that known since day one? Or has the media been stating otherwise or something making people upset about it? I have no idea, I don't watch the news on purpose, but I could have sworn basically everyone has been saying this preys mostly on 65+ this whole time.

Just seems like a weird argument against the whole thing now, since that was always known.

 

[JB]

Slightly skimming so that might be adding to the confusion....

But what is with all of the stats being thrown around that all the deaths are coming from 65+? Wasn't that known since day one? Or has the media been stating otherwise or something making people upset about it? I have no idea, I don't watch the news on purpose, but I could have sworn basically everyone has been saying this preys mostly on 65+ this whole time.

Just seems like a weird argument against the whole thing now, since that was always known.

It was discussed earlier. The biggest reason for the discussion was that it was being reported at a number around 40% in areas. That number jumped to near 50% allegedly for an administrative change, largely in NY.

Had the number been that high originally, there are a lot of people that believe that the lockdown as a whole would have been handled far differently and that 50 million people may not be unemployed.

 

[JB]

Very reactionary of you when you assume. Oy, vey ...

I explained a better way in another post.

Stop the personal attacks, please.

I know you guys go back and forth, but genuinely I took that as the idea of less control to states being fascist, not him calling you a fascist.

 

[JDax]

I know you guys go back and forth, but genuinely I took that as the idea of less control to states being fascist, not him calling you a fascist.

This 100%

 

[CBaker]

Ok...again I don't get the point of this stat is what I am saying if it's being used to push a viewpoint one way or another.

this was known before anything happened in the US. It was in every report coming out of every other country that deaths very disproportionately towards 65+.

Edit: just picked a random date of March 21st from the CDC website for deaths by age. 65+ accounted for slightly more than 78% of total deaths. All I am saying is that we've known this the whole time. the whole time. It's a weird stat to use to argue against closing stuff down now. we knew this before we started closing stuff.

 

[JDax]

Ok...again I don't get the point of this stat is what I am saying if it's being used to push a viewpoint one way or another.

this was known before anything happened in the US. It was in every report coming out of every other country that deaths very disproportionately towards 65+.

Edit: just picked a random date of March 21st from the CDC website for deaths by age. 65+ accounted for slightly more than 78% of total deaths. All I am saying is that we've known this the whole time. the whole time. It's a weird stat to use to argue against closing stuff down now. we knew this before we started closing stuff.

I think it goes to the argument that we shouldn’t have closed everything to begin with, quarantine the Old & the Compromised, and everyone else go about their lives...

 

[wubears71]

I really hate being the stay-at-home parent. I can handle it for a couple of days a week. Right now I am going insane. I have never wanted to work so much before.

 

[CBaker]

I think it goes to the argument that we shouldn’t have closed everything to begin with, quarantine the Old & the Compromised, and everyone else go about their lives...

Right. However...we knew that going in. It's just a weird point to bring up now, we already knew it. The closing stuff down was done in essence to protect those 65+, because it would be spread so easily to them and then they had a high rate of mortality compared to the rest of the population.

I tried to make the point before - but just as easily as you can argue that nursing homes are a great example of how we should have just closed those down and everyone else could have went about their business as usual. You can also make the argument that the nursing homes are a great example of what could have happened with no restrictions in place. How many more seniors or others 65+ would have been impacted or killed who have the luxury of not needing to be in a nursing home, but would have gotten it if there wasn't social distancing in place.

Two sides to every coin. Not saying I don't think we should have remained way more open than we were, as I've said previously I think we should have. But....that can be taken both ways. Just depends what you want to believe and argue for.

 

[JB]

Right. However...we knew that going in. It's just a weird point to bring up now, we already knew it.

The only reason it is being brought up now is that the numbers literally changed over night, evidently. 10% jump in data overnight due to coding, whether its something we suspected or not, changes a lot of opinions.

 

[JonMA1]

Yeah my company is headquartered in Michigan and the one guy in a Zoom call the other day told me he was thrown out of Home Depot for trying to buy paint.

Apparently you weren’t even able to buy “non-essential” products at stores. Also if you had a cottage up in the northern part of the state you could not go to it. That is absolute insanity and scary

While I'm not calling BS on any individual experience, it's just not like that and hasn't been... not in Northern Michigan anyway. My son lives in Wayne County (Detroit area) and he's been able to buy stuff for the house and yard for quite a while now. It's not the first time I've heard rumors of over-the-top regulations so maybe "they" are a little tougher in some places than others.... or it's a bit of hyperbole.

As far as folks coming up to cottages, I see northbound traffic increase every Friday. Maybe at first people were hesitant, but the weather is just now getting perfect up here. Traveling up here in March and April isn't as common anyway. There were a lot of residents here freaking out that the "downstaters" would bring the virus up here. Honestly, if I lived in that area, had a cabin up north with my job being furloughed and the kids out of school, hell yes I'd bring them up to the cabin! Lol.

But yeah, as it seems to be in a few other states, the regulations are too much at this point in time. Keep in mind the state was behind only New York and New Jersey as far as deaths most of which where in Metro Detroit and the surrounding counties. I'm not defending the governor now, but I think she wanted to contain it initially - as she should have, IMO.

 

[CBaker]

The only reason it is being brought up now is that the numbers literally changed over night, evidently. 10% jump in data overnight due to coding, whether its something we suspected or not, changes a lot of opinions.

I noted data from March 27th that showed 78% of all covid related deaths were 65+. The data has always been there. Whether the news outlet or outlet people are getting their details from showed the same or not, is something I am unaware of. But every report coming out of China, and Italy, and South Korea, ALL of them showed disproportionate deaths for 65+. I'm honestly baffled this wasn't widely understood knowledge. I don't even watch the news and I knew that just from the early reports.

 

[Hoosiermess]

On a slightly different track here, with states reopening somewhat and me just realizing that this upcoming weekend is a three day weekend, is there anywhere open enough in the mid-west for a short golf trip? I'm not sure I will ultimately decide to go anywhere but I haven't heard of anything worthwhile going on locally and it's nice to start thinking about GOING SOMEWHERE to DO ANYTHING. Just thinking about it is brightening my mood.

 

[JDax]

Right. However...we knew that going in. It's just a weird point to bring up now, we already knew it. The closing stuff down was done in essence to protect those 65+, because it would be spread so easily to them and then they had a high rate of mortality compared to the rest of the population.

I tried to make the point before - but just as easily as you can argue that nursing homes are a great example of how we should have just closed those down and everyone else could have went about their business as usual. You can also make the argument that the nursing homes are a great example of what could have happened with no restrictions in place. How many more seniors or others 65+ would have been impacted or killed who have the luxury of not needing to be in a nursing home, but would have gotten it if there wasn't social distancing in place.

Two sides to every coin. Not saying I don't think we should have remained way more open than we were, as I've said previously I think we should have. But....that can be taken both ways. Just depends what you want to believe and argue for.

The issue is that Data and Models were/are used to drive policy decisions.

In many cases certain milestones have to be reached to enter the next phase of reopening, if the data that is being reported isn’t clean, that makes a big difference in people being able to get on with their lives.

Somehow we went from “15 Days to flatten the curve” to “Lockdown until you hit certain Milestones”. It is fair for people to question the validly or the data being reported.

*Don’t worry if your State isn’t looking like it’s going reach the guidelines needed to reopen in a timely manner... This will be over on 11/4 regardless of where your state is in the phases of reopening.

 

[RealPretendPsychic]

On a slightly different track here, with states reopening somewhat and me just realizing that this upcoming weekend is a three day weekend, is there anywhere open enough in the mid-west for a short golf trip? I'm not sure I will ultimately decide to go anywhere but I haven't heard of anything worthwhile going on locally and it's nice to start thinking about GOING SOMEWHERE to DO ANYTHING. Just thinking about it is brightening my mood.

I’m going to the jersey shore!!! To help a buddy lay some floor after his basement flooded... but it’s the first time I’ll be more than 20 minutes from my house in 2 months!

 

[Raiderboost]

The issue is that Data and Models were/are used to drive policy decisions.

In many cases certain milestones have to be reached to enter the next phase of reopening, if the data that is being reported isn’t clean, that makes a big difference in people being able to get on with their lives.

Somehow we went from “15 Days to flatten the curve” to “Lockdown until you hit certain Milestones”. It fair for people to question the validly or the data being reported.

It seems like some places want to stay closed until there is a vaccine or the virus is gone. Both of which could be never.

 

[CBaker]

The issue is that Data and Models were/are used to drive policy decisions.

In many cases certain milestones have to be reached to enter the next phase of reopening, if the data that is being reported isn’t clean, that makes a big difference in people being able to get on with their lives.

Somehow we went from “15 Days to flatten the curve” to “Lockdown until you hit certain Milestones”. It fair for people to question the validly or the data being reported.

but what is being argued with this is that it shouldn't have happened to begin with, not, we need to reopen and you're misreporting numbers. If that was the case, then absolutely. I have a big issue with misreporting "facts" and cases like that.

But the argument of this age deal is now that this never needed to happen to begin with because it's primarily the older citizens effected. but we already knew that. Age shouldn't matter if it's an argument on certain milestones, as that should just be overall stat based (cases per day or vs deaths or whatever they want to use that day).

 

[MagicSpell]

Right. However...we knew that going in. It's just a weird point to bring up now, we already knew it. The closing stuff down was done in essence to protect those 65+, because it would be spread so easily to them and then they had a high rate of mortality compared to the rest of the population.

I'm not sure I recall when the CDC model (based on the UK model) projected upwards of 200 million infections and as many as 1.7 million deaths that they were projecting the majority of those deaths as only to ages 65 and above. They used those projections to basically indicate the entire population was at risk unless actions were taken.

 

[JDax]

It seems like some places want to stay closed until there is a vaccine or the virus is gone. Both of which could be never.

It will be over on 11/4 regardless of a vaccine or number of cases...

 

[JB]

I noted data from March 27th that showed 78% of all covid related deaths were 65+. The data has always been there. Whether the news outlet or outlet people are getting their details from showed the same or not, is something I am unaware of. But every report coming out of China, and Italy, and South Korea, ALL of them showed disproportionate deaths for 65+. I'm honestly baffled this wasn't widely understood knowledge. I don't even watch the news and I knew that just from the early reports.

The issue is not what we all knew and most reasonable did. It was that the data in areas like NY used to create policy changed with in the last month (allegedly). To use an example, it has been reported (BBC was first I think) that one month ago today, NYC had a spike of 10k deaths due to COVID19, yet none of those people were tested?

Combine that with the millions projected early on and the early fears were not old people only.

That is how policies get formed and change and many of us believe that had numbers been even close to more accurate, millions might still be employed and small business owners wouldn't be hanging on for dear life.

 

[JDax]

but what is being argued with this is that it shouldn't have happened to begin with, not, we need to reopen and you're misreporting numbers. If that was the case, then absolutely. I have a big issue with misreporting "facts" and cases like that.

But the argument of this age deal is now that this never needed to happen to begin with because it's primarily the older citizens effected. but we already knew that. Age shouldn't matter if it's an argument on certain milestones, as that should just be overall stat based (cases per day or vs deaths or whatever they want to use that day).

It does matter if you attempting to determine the relative safety of reopening to the working population, that’s where the age data comes in.

 

[CBaker]

I'm not sure I recall when the CDC model (based on the UK model) projected upwards of 200 million infections and as many as 1.7 million deaths that they were projecting the majority of those deaths as only to ages 65 and above. They used those projections to basically indicate the entire population was at risk unless actions were taken.

If you didn't notice or catch on that it was primarily 65+ then I don't know what to tell you. It was in every age breakdown coming out of everywhere.

 

[CBaker]

The issue is not what we all knew and most reasonable did. It was that the data in areas like NY used to create policy changed with in the last month (allegedly). To use an example, it has been reported (BBC was first I think) that one month ago today, NYC had a spike of 10k deaths due to COVID19, yet none of those people were tested?

That is how policies get formed and change and many of us believe that had numbers been even close to more accurate, millions might still be employed and small business owners wouldn't be hanging on for dear life.

I don't watch the news so that is what I was looking for. I was genuinely confused. That is also a big issue and something completely different than deaths by age. Misreporting of numbers, especially when creating policy, should be something every single person should take huge issue with. I just didn't understand why people were all of a sudden quoting deaths by age statistics like it was a new thing.

 

[JB]

I don't watch the news so that is what I was looking for. I was genuinely confused. That is also a big issue and something completely different than deaths by age. Misreporting of numbers, especially when creating policy, should be something every single person should take huge issue with. I just didn't understand why people were all of a sudden quoting deaths by age statistics like it was a new thing.

I get it, totally. That is why I came in and asked the question if it was real. Because the data out of NY specifically over the last month has changed 3-4 times. Its scary when we are basing peoples health and livelihoods on items that are nonsense.