Lockdowns save lives. The evidence is clear around the world.
Overwhelming evidence suggests that lockdowns help contain coronavirus outbreaks and prevent additional deaths.
www.businessinsider.com
Corona Virus/COVID19: Local Impact
- Status
www.businessinsider.com
LICC
Well-known member
That is not a statement that supports your theory. What data are you basing this on?
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2016
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Handicap
- True
It all depends on the scope of your question. Harvard Medical School estimates that 36,000 people die from flu in the US each year, so if you're 40 years old you've seen almost 1.5 million people die from the flu, all of which were someone's mother, father, grandparent or child. If you worry that contagious disease will take a loved one, the odds are far better that the disease to do it will be influenza, not covid. Then there are the outliers. The 1968 Hong Kong flu killed 100,000 in the US which adjusted for population growth would be almost 160,000 today. It's possible that covid may get there but it has a long way to go. Compared to the typical seasonal flu over a 12 month period, covid is truly worse but we've had flu seasons that dwarf covid and we will again.
Non-Course Ranges are still closed here in NYC, most on course ranges are open as far as I can tell.
Covid’s stats will forever be skewed by the measures taken to prevent it though.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2016
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Handicap
- True
Very true, however the overwhelmingly vast majority of the skew will likely be in cases, not deaths. When the median age for covid deaths is pushing 80 and a quarter come straight from assisted care facilities, cancelling Billy's tee ball game in March when we now know it was circulating in January (or maybe even earlier) probably did cut total cases but likely had a small impact on overall mortality. But I agree we'll never know for sure.
- Staff
- #11,732
Lockdowns save lives. The evidence is clear around the world.
Overwhelming evidence suggests that lockdowns help contain coronavirus outbreaks and prevent additional deaths.
Missing the point...Lockdowns save lives. The evidence is clear around the world.
Overwhelming evidence suggests that lockdowns help contain coronavirus outbreaks and prevent additional deaths.
I never said anything about spread, the chart I posted was about mortality probability factoring in all causes of mortality. Here below ⬇
@LLIC stated that it proves that the lockdown stopped the spread.
Maybe, however, that has nothing to do with mortality probability, because that number is derived from the number of deaths due to COVID19 + all causes of mortality. Not the total number of cases...
Hence the appearance of the Bandit gif...
The most recent data I can find from the CDC (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku/data)
For the week ending 5/23:
| Age group | COVID-19 Deaths | % | |
| Under 1 year | 5 | 0.006% | |
| 1-4 years | 3 | 0.004% | |
| 5-14 years | 11 | 0.014% | |
| 15-24 years | 93 | 0.114% | |
| 25-34 years | 542 | 0.666% | |
| 35-44 years | 1,403 | 1.724% | |
| 45-54 years | 3,893 | 4.784% | |
| 55-64 years | 9,776 | 12.014% | |
| 65-74 years | 16,981 | 20.868% | Sum of >55: 92.688% |
| 75-84 years | 21,822 | 26.818% | |
| 85 years and over | 26,843 | 32.988% |
Do you have to wipe down the doorknobs on the way in and out as well?So, my company has mandated masks from the parking lot and on site. Even alone in your office with door closed. Crazy thing is they issued non-n95 masks , but said you can’t wear your own unless it is n95.
My point had nothing to do with mortality probablity. Licc said that the lockdown had slowed the spread and you posted a laughing gif. That’s what I was responding to. I know it doesn’t fit the popular narrative, but he’s right that the lockdown did indeed slow the spread of the disease
- Staff
- #11,736
He quoted my post of the Mortality Probability chart...
Which is different than spread... Sorry for confusion.
LICC
Well-known member
That is not an accurate comparison. We have never done shutdowns for the flu. You can't compare non-shutdown flu numbers to Covid numbers during shutdowns.
LICC
Well-known member
n
So if we had not imposed shutdowns, we would be looking at 80,000 deaths or more of people under 55 from Covid.
LICC
Well-known member
Is it not obvious that the probability of dying from Covid is reduced if the spread of Covid is reduced?
Going out is optional but it's also mentally healthy to have a life outside. It's a balance. I think it's essential to get outside and enjoy some sun and conversation. I hit birdie balls from the back porch with wedges.
I limit my options in my 2 person home caring for a 14 yr old, and do all grocery shopping, curbside pickup, walking, running, and playing golf - on the range or at the course. When I meet a friend, it's still social distanced and inside, it's with masks. I have exercise equipment so a gym is not necessary. Will not go to theatres, gyms or other inside activities yet. I get out yet limit myself to what I feel is safe for my level of risk.
Where do you get those numbers? Some states hardly delis a lockdown and ended up with very low mortality. The lockdown will cause way more issues. 54 million in US will not have enough food according to studies.
- Admin
- #11,742
How is that determined?
Based on what we know now, and where the deaths took place, it seems rather logical that taking precautionary measures with those at risk and letting the young and healthy continue to work makes the most sense.
I would still love to get the question answered I keep asking about the data that suggests this is far worse for the young and healthy.
First, I posted those numbers in response to you post questioning the statement about the number of deaths over age 80. From this source, you were correct to be suspicious. But even though that poster was not literally correct, the general point he was making was still valid - namely, the elderly are predominantly at risk with C19 (80% of deaths are for people 65 and older and 92% of deaths are people 55 and older).
To your point in this post... there is no way to know if that is true or not. Per the CDC numbers we've had just under 5,500 deaths for people under 54. Of course there would be more of them if we had not locked down. Based on what little I know about how the disease works I'm suspicious it would have been 80K.
Also, understand these numbers don't account for co=morbidities. So the overall risk to young people in good health is actually better than what is shown.
Flattening the curve does not reduce area under curve, it just slows spread. You are assuming there will be a vaccine soon. It may be 6 months or years or never. I personally would not take a vaccine that was rushed through trials.
I have mixed thoughts, so forgive me for not being able to argue too much either way. Only asking the elderly to shelter, similar to what Sweden did, caused more deaths/pop than its neighbors. Their death by age demographic isn’t that different, so my understanding is that because Covid19 spread more rapidly there, even with the eldery only going out for bare necessities put them at risk. It’s either that or those taking care of the eldery inadvertently infected them, not knowing they were infected. Not sure why, but more elderly people died there despite the request that they shelter than in its neighbor countries.
Otoh, one of the justifications for locking in place was not overhwelming icus like what happened in Italy. This would supposedly put a higher % at risk. Well, Italy’s death by demographics is atill inline with everywhere else. So that point, one that I had enforced, turned out to be wrong.
I still have my belief on how this disease should be treated in most places, and a prolonged lockdown isn’t it. I do believe locking down swiftly at the right time, testing and tracing are keys.
Otoh, one of the justifications for locking in place was not overhwelming icus like what happened in Italy. This would supposedly put a higher % at risk. Well, Italy’s death by demographics is atill inline with everywhere else. So that point, one that I had enforced, turned out to be wrong.
I still have my belief on how this disease should be treated in most places, and a prolonged lockdown isn’t it. I do believe locking down swiftly at the right time, testing and tracing are keys.
LICC
Well-known member
COVID-19 is killing 20 times more people per week than flu does, new paper says
The new coronavirus is not "just another flu."
www.livescience.com
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 24,230
- Reaction score
- 25,758
- Handicap
- 17.2
I have 3 trips planned through Labor Day. Going to a concert in October.
What about the long term economic effects that will also reduce people's life span? There was an interesting study done by a british economist (that I cannot locate now) that stated life spans will be reduced for people that lived through "the covid" but not because of long term damage done by getting the virus itself. Instead it is going to be due to more people being thrust into lower incomes and and the fact that people in that group tend to not live as long. Diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other maladies will take them, but their deaths might as well be attributed to the events and actions taken to stop the spread of Covid-19. These are deaths that we will not see today or tomorrow, but they will occur nonetheless.
How about the children that will be more at risk around the world from dying of malnutrition? Or poor access to healthcare because their parents lost their jobs? These are real deaths as well and shouldn't be overlooked either. I think a lot of decisions were made quickly out of fear (or the optics of not doing enough) and I think that's still happening to some extent.
I have no issues with a person wearing a mask in the grocery store. I don't because of my glorious facial hair rendering it virtually useless but if that's what it takes for a person to feel better about getting closer to a daily routine, go for it. I just don't think you put a fire out on a boat by sinking the ship and then wondering why you are left floating in the ocean.
I also don't think any of us are guaranteed tomorrow. If you are going to live in fear of contracting a disease, I'm not sure you will ever feel safe in this world or any I can imagine living in.
How about the children that will be more at risk around the world from dying of malnutrition? Or poor access to healthcare because their parents lost their jobs? These are real deaths as well and shouldn't be overlooked either. I think a lot of decisions were made quickly out of fear (or the optics of not doing enough) and I think that's still happening to some extent.
I have no issues with a person wearing a mask in the grocery store. I don't because of my glorious facial hair rendering it virtually useless but if that's what it takes for a person to feel better about getting closer to a daily routine, go for it. I just don't think you put a fire out on a boat by sinking the ship and then wondering why you are left floating in the ocean.
I also don't think any of us are guaranteed tomorrow. If you are going to live in fear of contracting a disease, I'm not sure you will ever feel safe in this world or any I can imagine living in.
well, except the people who think a dentist mask represents tyranny
Most people today at the Minneapolis and San Diego airports are not wearing masks and many who are have them pulled down around there neck, lol. For the adamant mask believers it will be a long time before you will be comfortable traveling by air.
- Status