Discussion in 'COVID-19' started by Notmyrealname, Dec 12, 2020.
I said divided so 300,000/0.001 = 3,000,000
That is using the raw data. This is not how you determine the "proper percentages" and that number is inconsistent with clinical studies of the disease.
The number of corona virus deaths is likely relatively accurate, the number of infections reported is likely very inaccurate.
In a recent Italian study they found that 42% of people were asymptomatic and never developed and symptoms.
The infection number is probably MUCH higher than the reported number due to asymptomatic people not getting tested or going to the hospital...and due to test kit availability. Again, using the raw data is not how you come up with an IFR.
You misquoted the facts on this. The Spanish Flu hit the very young (pre school age) and the older population.
The truth debunks your assertion that isolating high risk groups is a solution to the pandemic.
The below graph shows the specific death rate for each age group during the Spanish flu of 1918. You will see that school age children 5-14 actually had the lowest risk of death.
Yes, St. Louis closed schools and had low risk school aged children stay at home which reduced the overall spread resulting in better outcomes for the high risk pre-school age and the elderly.
So by reducing the interaction between the low risk school aged children (5-14) St Louis was able to reduce the negative health outcomes in the high risk population of older and pre-school aged people.
This debunks your assertion that there is historical evidence showing that isolating high risk people while letting low risk people interact and get infected will result in a better health outcome.
Please try again.
I think that’s a minority (you naturally don’t see those who are staying at home and being responsible) and wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that well, if some don’t care, why should I.
Happy pagan holidays
I suggest you go back and read again. Asymptomatic carriers were still spreaders of the disease and this study was performed many months ago. I stand by my figures. Why you always have to belittle the seriousness of Corona is beyond me but I will continue to take you to task everytime you try this.
Rye's view on isolation of some parts of society has some merit in protecting the most vulnerable. Whether practical or not is another matter.
However, where do you draw that line? On Rye's logic, kids should be the first to be let out the house as they have the strongest resistance. Then younger adults and so on until you reach your arbitrary cut-off point.
The other consideration though is that the younger the group, the more gung ho they normally are. You see this in town every day - kids not wearing any mask; in the barangays - kids riding around on motorbikes 3/4 on board with no masks.
It seems to me that Rye is probably an exception to the rule in terms of 'younger' people not following rules (no idea of his age, but likely not that young, or that old). Similarly, the tendency for 'old geezers' to gather at WhyNot, playing cards etc is not reflective of the age group generally, just a few westerners here that Rye has a seemingly low view of.
The issue of care homes is clearly not relevant here, but I can tell you that despite isolating the residents of care homes as far as possible, the virus is still spreading via carers to the wider community. I can confirm this from first-hand accounts in the UK.
My personal summation is that the Philippines has probably got it about right in terms of age groups, but that lack of enforcement (as always) lets it down, as does this perpetual view that some well-connected groups in society are immune from viral contraction and spreading. Other societies will have/need different rules; whatever is appropriate.
You have this backwards.
The virus does not originate in care homes and then spread to the wider community.
It is the other way around. The virus in the wider community spreads into the care homes where it causes many deaths.
This is why the plan to allow wide spread infection is so bad. It will give the virus more opportunity to spread into care homes, hospitals and any place where people are trying to isolate themselves.
I don't think you understand my point Skip. Viral spread does not stop once one-way transmission happens. Of course the virus gets into a care home from out side, but once in there, it's very easy for it to spread to other residents and staff. The staff then take it outside. We have friends who's whole family have been infected (and who knows who else by them at husband's work, kid's school, pub etc), via the lady friend being infected at her work in a care home. She and other care workers cannot avoid contact with potential infection in their work, no matter how careful they are. Same with healthcare workers as we are now seeing here in Dumaguete. One of the main areas of cross-infection is in healthcare - closed environment; unavoidable close contact with others and potentially infected equipment etc.