OT: Good artilce from Bloomberg on COVID19 in ITaly..world doing this backwards.

[VirginiaCat]

100% of focus and funding should be on 1% of population that is truly at risk.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

[Catonahottinroof]

The same thing that has been at play with the flu for years and years.
100% of focus and funding should be on 1% of population that is truly at risk.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

[StuBleedsBlue2]

We've seen similar data here too, just look at New Orleans and Louisiana.

This shouldn't be a concern for the US, because we all know that high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart conditions aren't prevalent in the United States.:confused0053:

Not to mention that this country suffers from a significant large population that can't access healthcare to even be diagnosed for these conditions.

I find it interesting that the states that are rushing to open back up and to increase exposure to the virus are the ones that tend to be higher than average in these conditions.

Not sure where the 1% of the population comes from. It's pretty easy to fact check that, but I agree that nearly 100% of the focus should be on protecting the vulnerable, but now you're starting to talk about 30-40% of the population, probably at least 100 million people. We've spent a decade already fighting about protecting the health of 20-30 million people, the fight isn't going to get any easier, and it hasn't.

[Bakert]

You are misrepresenting the point of the story. The "1%" refers to the number of people who had no prior health issues. The point of the article is that 99% of those who had Covid-19 and died had at least one other health issue. There is this notion that "well, if only those with some pre-existing health condition die from Covid-19 we should allow those without a pre-existing condition live their lives."

Almost everyone has some pre-existing health condition.

Estimates are that between 1/3 to 1/2 of people in the US have high blood pressure.

A CDC study from Feb, 2020 reported that in 2017-2018 42% of all US adults were obese with 9% being severly obese. Another study suggested that 70% of US adults were overweight or obeses.

High blood pressure, high chloserteral, and smoking are the three biggest contributors to heart disearse. The CDC estimates that 47% of the US population has at least one of these.

So the world is not doing it backwards. And that article doesn't suggest they are doing it backwards. It's not that 1% are at risk, it's that 99% are.

In other news...

A PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll released today shows that 65% of those surveyed do not believe it is a good idea to have people return to work until more research has been done. 91% say it would not be a good idea to allow large groups of people to attend sporting events.

A poll from TX published on April 26 reports that 80% of Texans (TEXANS!!!) are in favor of prohibiting the size of gatherings to 10 or less; 77% are in favor of all Texans staying at home otehr than for essential activities; 66% are in favor of suspending operation of businesses deemed "nonessential."

A Morning Consult poll published April 15 suggests 75% of those polled believe it is more important for the government to address the spread of Covid-19 than its impact on the economy. Even a majority of Republicans support that (65% to 29% who believe the economic impact should take precedent). 81% of those surveyed agreed the US should continue social distancing as long as needed to reduce the spread of the coronavirus.

A CBS News poll published April 23 reports that 70 percent of respondents believe the country’s top priority should be to “try to slow the spread of coronavirus by keeping people home and social distancing, even if the economy is hurt in the short term.”



OK, sure, you can make data say whatever you want. And, yes, the answer you get depends on the question you ask. But when you have poll after poll saying more or less the same thing you start to get a feel for what the "truth" is.

Does it matter what people like us think? Well, probably not. As I have said before, I am not an epidemiologist (and unlike some, not here, I don't pretend to be one) so no one should take anything I say as being substantive, nor should they take seriously anyone whose claim to fame is having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. But from a political standpoint, what people *believe* is important. Furthermore, what the polls show is pretty much what the people who we should be listening to are saying.

But if the polls are showing overwhelmingly that those who are out there who are in economic distress still believe we should move slow on this, that is a pretty strong case for moving slowly. What I can't figure out is how almost all of the other group ended up here. :)

[CitizenBBN]

Honestly I have no idea what polls matter in terms of sound policy decisions, other than politicians care for their re-elections. Most Americans are clueless about basic things like France being in Europe, much less medical risk assessments and virology.

The only way we can stay closed indefinitely is if the federal government a) substantially changes their bailout focus to support every business in america (and they have failed miserably at that so far, I'll be happy to elaborate), and we go into so much debt the nation can never recover financially to pay it off. We're already about to send our debt past our GDP thanks to decades of reckless self indulgence.

[Bakert]

Honestly I have no idea what polls matter in terms of sound policy decisions, other than politicians care for their re-elections. Most Americans are clueless about basic things like France being in Europe, much less medical risk assessments and virology.

Oh, I don't disagree. Polls should not be used to make policy. But if we are going to discount polls, we almost have to also discount what "we" think. :)


The only way we can stay closed indefinitely is if the federal government a) substantially changes their bailout focus to support every business in america (and they have failed miserably at that so far, I'll be happy to elaborate), and we go into so much debt the nation can never recover financially to pay it off. We're already about to send our debt past our GDP thanks to decades of reckless self indulgence.

And that is a great point and highlights the differences between the US and a big part of the world. There have been some things I've read in the past couple of days about how Sweden has approached this and while their death rate is ahead of many other countries, their infection rate is, too. In other words, they have remained more open and taken more infections/deaths but they have been able to do that in part due to the fact that everyone has health care. So those who become ill are more likely to have access to care. But, they have remained open and will get to herd immunity more quickly.

It may not sound like it, but I agree with what you say, with maybe one exception - not only does staying closed indefinitley imply substantial changes in how government operates, but not staying closed indefinitely also would suggest substantial changes. For example, if people do not have jobs does it continue to make sense to tie health care to jobs? BTW, while we may not agree on how the gov't should have supported business, I do agree they have not done it the way I would have.

Finally, I will mention modern monetary theory, which suggests that as long as a country has control over its currency there is no real concern about deficits. No, this was not developed by AOC. :). The "face" of this is a woman named Stephanie Kelton who has a book coming out in June. I have no idea if it is any more or less "voodoo economics" than supply-side economics, but it has gained a great deal of ground recently.

Apologies to all, particularly virginiacat who started the thread, if I have taken things the wrong direction.

[VirginiaCat]

Apologies to all, particularly virginiacat who started the thread, if I have taken things the wrong direction.

NOT AT ALL. good points.

I do not necessarily agree. If you look at the average age of death in Italy I think it contradicts much of your premise about a broader population danger unless you can make the argument that the US population is more broadly less healthy than the US.

Honestly, infection rate data is screwed in every country because of lack of testing or in the case of asia, false results on tests given.

to me, the only way to truly look at this from a numbers standpoint is mortality rate as a percent of total population and even that may be wrong if they are falsely attributing a death to COVID when it was another cause likely to happen anyway or if they are not counting deaths at home (I believe early on Italy was not counting deaths at home).

But, what we do know from italy is that the average age of death and the vast preponderance of deaths was to seniors.

[CitizenBBN]

bakert - Free money is always popular, thus the popularity that debt is not a drain on an economy.

It's also always a lie, b/c there's no free lunch in the world. Until we invent warp drives and dilithium processing for endless energy it just won't happen.

We spend almost $500 BILLION a year on interest on the debt. How much good could we do with that kind of money if we werent' sending it to China et al? that's about $3,500 per US taxpayer (143 million people). Or another way to look at it, we spend about $1 trillion on all medicare/medicaid. That's enough to cover all those people we keep hearing about that need medical coverage, with ZERO additional budget costs, if we just didn't have all this piled up debt.

Debt for nations is the same as for individuals. You're borrowing the money from somewhere, and the fact that you can print more is just a third world fantasy that will collapse our economy.

Macroeconomists get all high and mighty and forget the basics, that all economics is still microeconomics, just scaled up. It looks weird, like when you scale up physics to the scale of galaxies, but in the end it's still millions of people making micro decisions every day, all added up, and in the end you can't borrow till hell freezes over without consequences.

Unless we're going to turn to military conquest. That would work, but seems unlikely as a solution.

[kingcat]

We can thank our healthcare workers, and taking decisive action to social distance (to this point) for saving the lives of some here and many across this country. The strength of this nation and others came to the forefront in caring for its people.
Thank God we have not totally lost our collective souls.

After the bear has been driven back the tendency is for everyone to rush out the cabin door pounding their chests declaring the creature was just a pansy all along and posed no danger.

We had better not disregard the bear. Nor the bodies scattered on the hillsides.

[VirginiaCat]

We can thank our healthcare workers, and taking decisive action to social distance (to this point) for saving the lives of some here and many across this country. The strength of this nation and others came to the forefront in caring for its people.
Thank God we have not totally lost our collective souls.

After the bear has been driven back the tendency is for everyone to rush out the cabin door pounding their chests declaring the creature was just a pansy all along and posed no danger.

We had better not disregard the bear. Nor the bodies scattered on the hillsides.

The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

[kingcat]

The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

Of course those of us up in years and the health challenged are overwhelmingly more inclined to suffer.
And the fact that many if not most of those exist in a situation where they cannot distance themselves from others, amplifies that.

I am speaking as one of those susceptible to a bad result.

My post was more directed at the most frustrated few I read posting anti establishment memes on facebook and elsewhere and blaming Democrats for the fake virus. Im doing FB promotions right now and I am having to snooze twenty or thirty sites a day posting mostly far right propaganda related to covid19. Lots of I hate Candy Andy posts and the like too. I understand the reason for it however...solely partisan politics. And stay at home heavy drinking.

The main point is, mine was just a random thought. A drive by as it were. :)
I made a random and generalized post above, and wasn't actually responding to any post in the thread or adding much to the fine discussion.

[MickintheHam]

Ah yes! I remember all of those PBS/Marxist and CBS polls in 2016. They all said the same thing.......and they were all wrong!

Polling in this country is a disgrace.

[ukpumacat]

Ah yes! I remember all of those PBS/Marxist and CBS polls in 2016. They all said the same thing.......and they were all wrong!

Polling in this country is a disgrace.

There are some really good polls and really bad polls. But in the case of Clinton-Trump the polls were right on.

The final average of polls had Clinton by 3.2 points (LA Times had Trump by 3). She won by 2.1. Way within the margin of error. Trump of course won the electorate which is what matters for the Presidency. But the polls had the popular vote almost right on.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html