It's important to provide that information (haven't confirmed it, just got home), but I do want young and healthy people worried. Fear is protective, for the entire society.
He had severe psoriasis. Not exactly an immunodeficiency, they are at increased risk for some diseases, but to my knowledge infections aren't one of them (except skin, obviously).
Might have been something like a cytokine storm, the type that killed younger people in Spanish Flu. It was so fast... Merely speculating in this paragraph.
Nobody needs to be shite scared. If you act responsibly and follow the advice from experts you'll very likely be fine.I'm glad we have plenty of smart posters here who can counter the scaremongering and sensationalism so quickly. But @Arruda isn't wrong that yoof need to be shite scared too.
Nobody needs to be shite scared. If you act responsibly and follow the experts advice you'll very likely be fine.
Young people dying are still statistical outliers. If you're young and you have no underlying health issues, I'm not sure what there is to "shite scared" about. Do you live your life in fear of all improbable events? Respect the situation, take all necessary and proportional precautions, but don't become irrational. We are going to require young, healthy people to lead the volunteering effort.I'm glad we have plenty of smart posters here who can counter the scaremongering and sensationalism so quickly. But @Arruda isn't wrong that yoof need to be shite scared too.
I think this is a given behind many closed doors, but not many senior figures are willing to make the argument publicly, because it is too easy to spin as politicians engaging in "eugenics" and the like, as we saw from this very thread earlier. I've never been in doubt that our way out of this will be via the public becoming steadily infected and recovering, which makes those most vulnerable safer. People are terrified of being near those who are contagious, but the irony is that in a further fortnight's time those people will be the best people to be around!Another expert in Germany has come out against lockdowns because they endanger herd immunity and have severe social consequences. This time a hospital director and deputy coordinator for emerging infections at the German Center for Infection Research. I've made a few of these posts in the last week as I think it is very imporant to highlight this side of the argument. I can't speak for other countries but it is really noticeable in German media how many virologists and other experts from the world of science seem to be in agreement about this.
My own translation of the key parts:
"Caring for the mentally ill has become more difficult, the family situation in confined spaces holds extreme potential for conflict and an economic crisis has a direct impact on the mortality rate. The longer these measures last, the worse it will get."
"Without a vaccine, which won't be available before 2021, the uncontrolled spread of the virus can only be stopped if a sufficient number of people have developed immunity. If not, the epidemic will reignite every time we loosen the restrictions. We have to allow those for whom the virus poses the least danger to immunise by getting infected."
"Children as well as most of their young parents aren't high-risk groups. The faster this group gets infected, the better. That's why daycare centres and schools should reopen soon."
"I'm in discourse with many colleages from very different disciplines who think similarly. We agree that we cannot solely look at Corona. If we do, we will cause a lot of damage. Many people are going to suffer and die because the number of hospital beds will be reduced, because social and medical services won't work anymore, because people have to live alone and others jammed together, because careers and lifes will be endangered."
Source (in German)
Can someone explained to me how every person under 70 with no underlying health issues getting infected stops those elderly or with health conditions from dying?Another expert in Germany has come out against lockdowns because they endanger herd immunity and have severe social consequences. This time, a hospital director and deputy coordinator for emerging infections at the German Center for Infection Research. I've made a few of these posts in the last week as I think it is very imporant to highlight this side of the argument. I can't speak for other countries but it is really noticeable in German media how many virologists and other experts from the world of science seem to be in agreement about this.
My own translation of the key parts:
"Caring for the mentally ill has become more difficult, the family situation in confined spaces holds extreme potential for conflict and an economic crisis has a direct impact on the mortality rate. The longer these measures last, the worse it will get."
"Without a vaccine, which won't be available before 2021, the uncontrolled spread of the virus can only be stopped if a sufficient number of people have developed immunity. If not, the epidemic will reignite every time we loosen the restrictions. We have to allow those for whom the virus poses the least danger to immunise by getting infected."
"Children as well as most of their young parents aren't high-risk groups. The faster this group gets infected, the better. That's why daycare centres and schools should reopen soon."
"I'm in discourse with many colleages from very different disciplines who think similarly. We agree that we cannot solely look at Corona. If we do, we will cause a lot of damage. Many people are going to suffer and die because the number of hospital beds will be reduced, because social and medical services won't work anymore, because people have to live alone and others jammed together, because careers and lifes will be endangered."
Source (in German)
Can someone explained to me how every person under 70 with no underlying health issues getting infected stops those elderly or with health conditions from dying?
Will the virus suddenly just disappear?
I think this is a given behind many closed doors, but not many senior figures are willing to make the argument publicly, because it is too easy to spin as politicians engaging in "eugenics" and the like, as we saw from this very thread earlier. I've never been in doubt that our way out of this will be via the public becoming steadily infected and recovering, which makes those most vulnerable safer. People are terrified of being near those who are contagious, but the irony is that in a further fortnight's time those people will be the best people to be around!
It's the same concept as how vaccines work. Get a sufficient number of individuals immune and the virus no longer has the ability to jump from host to host because there's too few non-immune individuals nearby. It's why vaccines against measles etc are so important. Keep the vaccination pressure on and eventually eradicate the disease.Can someone explained to me how every person under 70 with no underlying health issues getting infected stops those elderly or with health conditions from dying?
Will the virus suddenly just disappear?
Can someone explained to me how every person under 70 with no underlying health issues getting infected stops those elderly or with health conditions from dying?
Will the virus suddenly just disappear?
Saw on the Guardian that’s Italy and France don’t count deaths at home or in nursing homes in their Corona deaths statistics. That’s fecking scary.
The argument is that with no vaccine in sight, lockdowns merely postpone the problem. As soon as the restrictions are lifted, people will get infected again. Developing immunity through infection is key to dealing with this, this is what experts seem to agree on. So young, healthy people may as well get infected now in a controlled way and then go back to work. Because if they don't, the economic impact will be disastrous and cause many more people to die.
The news has slipped me for a while, has the lockdown in Italy helped or not?
Everybody knows that lockdowns can't go on in the long run, but the initial phase is absolutely necessary in order to buy some time, analyze the data and figure out: "What kind of disease are we dealing with here? How can we tailor the next phase to fit in with our society and demographics?" In an ideal world, we would have locked every at-risk person inside a hotel with doctors and nurses for three months while the rest of us actively tried to get infected, but that ship has already sailed.
The problem with the "herd immunity" approach was never that it wouldn't be useful to have a large percentage of the population become immune.
The issues were:
1) We had and maybe still have little reliable information on how likely people are to become infected a second time, which is a pretty huge issue if you're desperately depending on them not doing so.
2) Even countries that were trying their best to suppress the virus were seeing their healthcare systems get overwhelmed, so a more laissez faire approach with the specific aim of building herd immunity would have been a disaster in the short/medium term.
I mean it's fine for whatever scientists to point out that herd immunity would be very useful if immunity works that way in this particular case but I'm not sure what impact that idea is supposed to have on current policy given a health system like the UK's is about to get overrun as is. Of all the problems you're facing right now, a lack of infected patients really isn't one.
Sorry to be awkward but I'm somewhat confused by your posts. One minute you seem to be against a lockdown and the next in favour. I can understand the Germans being against a Chinese style total lockdown that hopes to eradicate the disease, but what about a British style one that is intended just to slow down the spread?Totally agree. I also see the main purpose of a lockdown as buying us time to figure out how we are going to deal with this long-term.
Young people dying are still statistical outliers. If you're young and you have no underlying health issues, I'm not sure what there is to "shite scared" about. Do you live your life in fear of all improbable events? Respect the situation, take all necessary and proportional precautions, but don't become irrational. We are going to require young, healthy people to lead the volunteering effort.
Can someone explained to me how every person under 70 with no underlying health issues getting infected stops those elderly or with health conditions from dying?
Will the virus suddenly just disappear?
That’s what statistics seem to imply indeed. There are tragic cases among the younger patients as well but much less frequent, the issue is even if mortality is 1 in 500 you are still sacrificing many lives if you just allow all of them to get sick. How many people between 20 and 40 die for any reasons during the year, 1% or less? Then giving them extra 0.2% is a material change to that likelihood.Young people dying are still statistical outliers. If you're young and you have no underlying health issues, I'm not sure what there is to "shite scared" about. Do you live your life in fear of all improbable events? Respect the situation, take all necessary and proportional precautions, but don't become irrational. We are going to require young, healthy people to lead the volunteering effort.
Young people dying are still statistical outliers. If you're young and you have no underlying health issues, I'm not sure what there is to "shite scared" about. Do you live your life in fear of all improbable events? Respect the situation, take all necessary and proportional precautions, but don't become irrational. We are going to require young, healthy people to lead the volunteering effort.
The problem with the "herd immunity" approach was never that it wouldn't be useful to have a large percentage of the population become immune.
The issues were:
1) We had and maybe still have little reliable information on how likely people are to become infected a second time, which is a pretty huge issue if you're desperately depending on them not doing so.
2) Even countries that were trying their best to suppress the virus were seeing their healthcare systems get overwhelmed, so a more laissez faire approach with the specific aim of building herd immunity would have been a disaster in the short/medium term.
I mean it's fine for whatever scientists to point out that herd immunity would be very useful if immunity works that way in this particular case but I'm not sure what impact that idea is supposed to have on current policy given a health system like the UK's is about to get overrun as is. Of all the problems you're facing right now, a lack of infected patients really isn't one.
Sorry to be awkward but I'm somewhat confused by your posts. One minute you seem to be against a lockdown and the next in favour. I can understand the Germans being against a Chinese style total lockdown that hopes to eradicate the disease, but what about a British style one that is intended just to slow down the spread?
I agree with a temporal lockdown of a few weeks if that time is used to come up with a plan to keep the health care system functional and protect higher-risk groups. Anything beyond that seems to be counter-productive according to experts like the one in the article I quoted. The more I read about it, the more difficult it becomes to justify keeping young and healthy people off the streets.
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.htmlThat’s what statistics seem to imply indeed. There are tragic cases among the younger patients as well but much less frequent, the issue is even if mortality is 1 in 500 you are still sacrificing many lives if you just allow all of them to get sick. How many people between 20 and 40 die for any reasons during the year, 1% or less? Then giving them extra 0.2% is a material change to that likelihood.
And what about the other more numerous experts that disagree with the one in the article?
Daily US update (useful interactive map after the jump): https://graphics.reuters.com/HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS-USA/0100B5K8423/index.html
123,329 from midnight this AM.
Chicago is racing ahead to join New Orleans and Detroit as new hotspots. I don’t know what happened in Detroit, with Chicago it just seemed like it was a matter of time.
Colorado has a fairly high number relative to population. They had some risk factors like people hitting the ski slopes one last time. Texas is still relatively low; I don’t know if the oil industry going into a tailspin at the start of this helped with people staying at home, but I don’t think that would explain all of it.
Thanks for replying. I got the impression earlier that you were totally against a lockdown but I may have misunderstood. The British plan seems to be to keep reviewing and react according to scientific advice, which seems logical to me.I agree with a temporal lockdown of a few weeks but only if that time is used to come up with a plan to keep the health care system functional and protect higher-risk groups. Anything beyond that seems to be counter-productive according to experts like the one in the article I quoted. The more I read about it, the more difficult it becomes to justify keeping young and healthy people off the streets.
That’s certainly not the point I was making.I guess some look beyond their own personal health and can be scared for others. Snowflakes eh
Couple of zeros too many on those percentages surely? 0.08% and 0.04% makes more sense.http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html
That's from 2005 but :
Mortality rate for 25-34 year old men was 1 in 1215 and women it's 1 in 2488 so about 0.0008% for men and 0.0004% for women.
Your first point is currently my great concern - we currently don’t understand enough about the way this virus behaves in different environments to take the chance on ‘herd immunity’ before we give ourselves the best chance possible of being able to accurately trace its path - which we cannot do without a lockdown of at least a month or two.
