Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How is your over all health?  Any chronic problems?

Yes, that would be more of a concern to me than age.  Often with age comes health problems, but not always.  And chronic problems seem to make you age faster.  So my thought is that the age doesn't matter as much as the health problems that typically come with it 

  • Like 2
Link to post

This is from early and not a large sample, so may have changed, but the vast majority of those hospitalized had preexisting medical conditions.  
 

Quote

Among 178 (12%) adult patients with data on underlying conditions as of March 30, 2020, 89.3% had one or more underlying conditions; the most common were hypertension (49.7%), obesity (48.3%), chronic lung disease (34.6%), diabetes mellitus (28.3%), and cardiovascular disease (27.8%). These findings suggest that older adults have elevated rates of COVID-19–associated hospitalization and the majority of persons hospitalized with COVID-19 have underlying medical conditions. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm

  • Like 2
Link to post

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2770279?guestAccessKey=ec87204d-c42d-4d34-bef5-077a40bc86b0&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=090220

Findings  In this prospective meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials that included 1703 patients of whom 647 died, 28-day all-cause mortality was lower among patients who received corticosteroids compared with those who received usual care or placebo (summary odds ratio, 0.66).

Steriods reduce death. Cheap and available drug.

  • Like 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We have a dilemma.

Sister Gui has been preparing to teach her kindergarten class on-line from her classroom. Today she learned that our school district may open classrooms to students on September 23 because our county infection rate has been dropping. 

We are both over 65. Should we be concerned? We can’t find reliable and consistent information. 

You should be concerned. How concerned depends on how both of you are doing healthwise and your risk tolerance and how badly she needs/wants to stay with that job. I am so sorry you are in that position. :( 

  • Like 4
Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You should be concerned. How concerned depends on how both of you are doing healthwise and your risk tolerance and how badly she needs/wants to stay with that job. I am so sorry you are in that position. :( 

I know a kindergarten teacher that teaches online instead of the classroom, which works wonderful because her husband is very susceptible of any virus let alone covid. I believe many will opt to keep their child home still, at least that was what happened here in Utah. According to the teacher I know, there are many teachers doing this. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Current stats.

image.thumb.png.3aee9f110446dee44ac0b0e7248f8f8c.png

 

While technically correct the graphs are a little misleading. I would recommend either using a 90 day progression or the full time progression.

I use that site and I am confused at this image. Why does the third graph lack the average bar of the others. I have also not even seen an option to pull the data from a specific date like April 1.

Here is the source if anyone wants the graphs: https://covidtracking.com/data

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know a kindergarten teacher that teaches online instead of the classroom, which works wonderful because her husband is very susceptible of any virus let alone covid. I believe many will opt to keep their child home still, at least that was what happened here in Utah. According to the teacher I know, there are many teachers doing this. 

There are mixed messages about how to open schools safely, kids being vectors, etc. Even from our own state and county public health organizations and the state and local school boards. No one seems to know what to do.

We do not have the option to teach online from home unless you petition for special consideration. It must be from the school. Sister Gui prefers that because she has all her materials and teaching stations set up in the classroom for online teaching. Online is a very poor substitute for in-person kindergarten teaching. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know a kindergarten teacher that teaches online instead of the classroom, which works wonderful because her husband is very susceptible of any virus let alone covid. I believe many will opt to keep their child home still, at least that was what happened here in Utah. According to the teacher I know, there are many teachers doing this. 

I went over to my brother's house yesterday to help his kids with remote learning. It is definitely sub-optimal (ones I helped were in 2nd and 4th grades) but it is safer. I found the software and material they were using to be bad. I have had several jobs creating online training. I found errors that the simplest of editorial passes should have caught.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess Dr. Fauci has been replaced, IMO, a terrible replacement. Hopefully I can post here instead of posting on FB and getting terrible replies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/us/politics/trump-scott-atlas-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR0KLobS1z9MBwf9S7dw-mmPeN5nxyl6e5YYE7RIWXfj8VO20XN2vfNbA80

I have been reading a lot of the data and reports and there is emerging two different sets of opinions and they are both supported by data. One opinion is, continue lockdowns and quarantines until we have a vaccine. The other is saying open up and protect the vulnerable. Some are saying we reach herd immunity at a much lower statistical infection rate. Today, we caught up to Sweden with their initial large curve of infection/death but they are now open and doing better than most countries. I would not let the fact there are differing opinions about what is best, be such a cause for alarm. Try and dismiss 'politics' from the analysis. Most of these experts have been wrong a  time or two but know, everyone involved wants what is best but see different ways. New Zealand was touted as a great example but as soon as they opened up, the virus found a way. Here is a generally non political discussion by a nobel prize winning scientist about what he sees in the data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1240&v=5UYnfr541ho&feature=emb_logo

Begin about the 11:00 mark. He's good a putting the issues in perspective.

*At the 36:00 minute mark, another doctor discusses risk factors. Emphasizes protecting those at high risk.

 

Edited by bsjkki
Link to post
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You should be concerned. How concerned depends on how both of you are doing healthwise and your risk tolerance and how badly she needs/wants to stay with that job. I am so sorry you are in that position. :( 

Thank you. We are both in good health but we need her salary for four more years....when she turns 70. She is passionate about teaching kindergarten and quitting now is unbearable for her. One option is to apply for exemptions and be assigned something else that does not involve exposure to children, such as teaching kids online who cannot come to school. She doesn't like that because she thrives on being with the kids, but if that is the only choice......

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While technically correct the graphs are a little misleading. I would recommend either using a 90 day progression or the full time progression.

I use that site and I am confused at this image. Why does the third graph lack the average bar of the others. I have also not even seen an option to pull the data from a specific date like April 1.

Here is the source if anyone wants the graphs: https://covidtracking.com/data

 

I think if you go to the website and look at the charts individually, it lets you pull the data from each date. https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I went over to my brother's house yesterday to help his kids with remote learning. It is definitely sub-optimal (ones I helped were in 2nd and 4th grades) but it is safer. I found the software and material they were using to be bad. I have had several jobs creating online training. I found errors that the simplest of editorial passes should have caught.

Sister Gui and her colleagues (including her principal) are in continual tears over the technological complexities and challenges, ever-changing edicts, contradictory instructions, etc. Four straight 7 hour days of training for on-line teaching. And school starts Tuesday. I'm sure they will survive and get it all figured out with a few weeks experience. At this point, she has decided to KISS it until things shake out.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
23 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

One opinion is, continue lockdowns and quarantines until we have a vaccine. The other is saying open up and protect the vulnerable.

I am not really seeing that first opinion coming from anyone (definitely not Fauci), and I think both sides agree with the second opinion.   

This is the difference in opinion as I see it.  One opinion is downplaying the severity of the virus, saying that only around 9,000 people have died from Covid, and that it is harmless in 99% of people, et., etc..  The other is acknowledging that around 180,000 people have died from Covid and that even healthy people do suffer severe morbidity from the disease, if not death.  You are right about the politics involved.  It is plain as day.  I don't think anyone would accuse Fauci's approach as being political however.

Edited by pogi
Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Hopefully I can post here instead of

Sorry, it is politics.  Please remove....

And others please don’t respond on this thread. 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not really seeing that first opinion coming from anyone (definitely not Fauci), and I think both sides agree with the second opinion.   

This is the difference in opinion as I see it.  One opinion is downplaying the severity of the virus, saying that only around 9,000 people have died from Covid, and that it is harmless in 99% of people, et., etc..  The other is acknowledging that around 180,000 people have died from Covid and that even healthy people do suffer severe morbidity from the disease, if not death.  It is safe to say that Fauci's approach is apolitical.  I can't say the same for the other.   

You must not live in California. ;)https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/28/californias-newsom-deploys-new-coronavirus-reopening-framework-most-counties-under-strict-orders.html

But here is the NYT. "We believe the choice is clear. We can continue to allow the coronavirus to spread rapidly throughout the country or we can commit to a more restrictive lockdown, state by state, for up to six weeks to crush the spread of the virus to less than one new case per 100,000 people per day."https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/opinion/coronavirus-lockdown-unemployment-death.html

"Many political leaders are of the mind that so long as the number of coronavirus cases is rising, whether it’s just a sore throat and a daylong fever, or a week in an ICU unit, the economy must be restricted. It’s a tug of war between those that want lockdowns until a vaccine is out, and those who want us all to tough it out." https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/08/16/no-summer-of-love-for-economy-as-coronavirus-second-wave-rolls-in/#3d066305229c

Some studies showed lockdowns did not effect mortality and it had more to do with the health of each countries population. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

"Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890

"There are experimental controls that all this research lacks. There are no observable instances in which there were either total lockdowns or no lockdowns at all. But there’s no escaping the evidence that, at minimum, heavy lockdowns were no more effective than light ones, and that opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little."

Link to post
30 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You must not live in California. ;)https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/28/californias-newsom-deploys-new-coronavirus-reopening-framework-most-counties-under-strict-orders.html

But here is the NYT. "We believe the choice is clear. We can continue to allow the coronavirus to spread rapidly throughout the country or we can commit to a more restrictive lockdown, state by state, for up to six weeks to crush the spread of the virus to less than one new case per 100,000 people per day."https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/opinion/coronavirus-lockdown-unemployment-death.html

"Many political leaders are of the mind that so long as the number of coronavirus cases is rising, whether it’s just a sore throat and a daylong fever, or a week in an ICU unit, the economy must be restricted. It’s a tug of war between those that want lockdowns until a vaccine is out, and those who want us all to tough it out." https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/08/16/no-summer-of-love-for-economy-as-coronavirus-second-wave-rolls-in/#3d066305229c

Some studies showed lockdowns did not effect mortality and it had more to do with the health of each countries population. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

"Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890

"There are experimental controls that all this research lacks. There are no observable instances in which there were either total lockdowns or no lockdowns at all. But there’s no escaping the evidence that, at minimum, heavy lockdowns were no more effective than light ones, and that opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little."

I thought you were talking about country-wide lock-downs.  Of course, local lock-downs of hot-spot areas may be hotly disputed.  It is mostly disputed because of the differing opinions I mentioned earlier, I think.

I will CFR the claim that any dominant opinion is proposing a lock-down "until a vaccine is out" though.  You seem to be suggesting that there are two dominant opinions and that one of those opinions includes locking down the country until a vaccine is out. 

You said it like this:

Quote

I have been reading a lot of the data and reports and there is emerging two different sets of opinions and they are both supported by data. One opinion is, continue lockdowns and quarantines until we have a vaccine.

Is that really a fair representation of any dominant opinion? 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I thought you were talking about country-wide lock-downs.  Of course, local lock-downs of hot-spot areas may be hotly disputed.  It is mostly disputed because of the differing opinions I mentioned earlier, I think.

I will CFR the claim that any dominant opinion is proposing a lock-down "until a vaccine is out" though.  You seem to be suggesting that there are two dominant opinions and that one of those opinions includes locking down the country until a vaccine is out. 

You said it like this:

Is that really a fair representation of any dominant opinion? 

Agree Pogi, all I care about is someone throwing caution to the wind, in the name of freedom. If that's the case, we might as well run red lights too! There is a petition against mandatory mask wearing in Provo right now, you probably know about it. To me, wearing the masks will stop the virus and the lock downs. So when people say they won't wear masks for only the freedom of saying no, and not a real reason, than I say they are the ones that are going to make us go backward instead of forward. I wish I could make them see this. I don't think a lock down will ever be necessary again, if we take precautions to not spread the virus. 

Link to post
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I thought you were talking about country-wide lock-downs.  Of course, local lock-downs of hot-spot areas may be hotly disputed.  It is mostly disputed because of the differing opinions I mentioned earlier, I think.

I will CFR the claim that any dominant opinion is proposing a lock-down "until a vaccine is out" though.  You seem to be suggesting that there are two dominant opinions and that one of those opinions includes locking down the country until a vaccine is out. 

You said it like this:

Is that really a fair representation of any dominant opinion? 

What do you make of this?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890

Quote

Six months into the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. has now carried out two large-scale experiments in public health—first, in March and April, the lockdown of the economy to arrest the spread of the virus, and second, since mid-April, the reopening of the economy. The results are in. Counterintuitive though it may be, statistical analysis shows that locking down the economy didn’t contain the disease’s spread and reopening it didn’t unleash a second wave of infections.

Considering that lockdowns are economically costly and create well-documented long-term public-health consequences beyond Covid, imposing them appears to have been a large policy error. At the beginning, when little was known, officials acted in ways they thought prudent. But now evidence proves that lockdowns were an expensive treatment with serious side effects and no benefit to society. 

TrendMacro, my analytics firm, tallied the cumulative number of reported cases of Covid-19 in each state and the District of Columbia as a percentage of population, based on data from state and local health departments aggregated by the Covid Tracking Project. We then compared that with the timing and intensity of the lockdown in each jurisdiction. That is measured not by the mandates put in place by government officials, but rather by observing what people in each jurisdiction actually did, along with their baseline behavior before the lockdowns. This is captured in highly detailed anonymized cellphone tracking data provided by Google and others and tabulated by the University of Maryland’s Transportation Institute into a “Social Distancing Index.”

Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads....

 

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To me, wearing the masks will stop the virus and the lock downs. 

It's kind of ironic, isn't it, that many of the same people who are against masks are the same ones who are against lock-downs? 

Edited by pogi
Link to post

Just to be clear, debating the medical necessity of possible lockdowns and what medical experts are saying is fine; when I say politics, it is discussion about what politicians are doing mostly. Who is the head of what department and who is a favorite or a target, etc...that is politics. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I will CFR the claim that any dominant opinion is proposing a lock-down "until a vaccine is out" though.

I reject your CFR as putting words in my mouth and your assumption I meant country wide was never stated.  And since on this we agree...

 

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

Of course, local lock-downs of hot-spot areas may be hotly disputed. 

I don’t really think we disagree on anything at all.

IMO, the virus is going to find a way and we should open up and manage. If you are high risk, take added precautions. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newindianexpress.com/world/2020/jul/19/no-normality-until-vaccine-british-scientists-counter-governments-claims-of-lifting-lockdown-2171832.amp

 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

If you are high risk, take added precautions. 

Or around people of high risk...

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...