Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Mean and median age of covid19 deaths??? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hooper31
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
you should probably read the sourcing provided or go to the gov't response thread....we discussed it there quite a bit.
Not saying there isn't a crossover to some extent with the people you list here. But the larger crossover segment is the one poo-pooing the need for ventilators. Some even claimed it would be down to zero in a week or two. Seems like once it was heard, many from "the sides" latched on to it for political reasons. It's still used in the gov't response thread...."the gov't overreacted...it wasn't nearly what was predicted" shtich is rampent in there.
Last edited by a moderator:
This disease mostly preys on sick old people. The virus is 20 times more deadly to those over 65. From a purely ecomomic standpoint, the cost to the economy was an obscene amount for the years and quality of life we saved. The most inefficient least cost-effective means of narrowly prolonging life ever. Would you spend $5 million to prolong you life one year?
shader
Footballguy
That is the illogical answer which refuses to look at the absurdity of the cost-benefit analysis. But it is stupid choice when looking at the numbers. I know dozens and dozens of people out of work or business facing financial ruin because of this. I don't know a single person who was confirmed infected and certainly no one who has died.
This had an economic imoact in the trillions. Even optimistically saving 100,000 lives puts the costs in the tens of millions of dollars per life saved. We as a society can not afford to soend that kind of money. We don't even spend that kind of money on children except in very rare isolated cases. I know, what anout our parents or grandparents. But that is not a logical answer which addresses the true costs vs. benefit.
Taking steps that inconvience us is one thing. Turing the lives of tens of mollions of people upside down is a different animal.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I suppose this depends on what you want to count. I suspect that we find some long term issues that end up associated with covid, which likely won’t be counted as covid deaths but perhaps take years or quality off of someones life, but that speculation on my part. Seeing some of the before/after pictures of healthy people who made it through but were intubated for weeks tells me it isn’t something I want to get.
We also keep comparing flu deaths to covid- we need to stop doing that until we get a years worth of covid deaths to accurately compare the numbers. If we end up with 150,000 deaths after a year, is that good? If we hit 200k+ deaths, would anyone have a different outlook? What is the threshold When a vaccine is developed, what might that number go down to?
matuski
Footballguy
You seem very confident, and it sounds so simple.. how did the models screw it up so bad?
How do they continue to do so?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hooper31
Footballguy
Please don't act like you don't have a line. You have a line that's represents a perfectly acceptable amount of death. It's an amount that requires no conversation and no acknowledgment of people dying. If your line is different than someone else does that make them automatically heartless? Every year there are people dying from all sorts of reasons and you don't bother to comment on them. Does that make you heartless?
the moops
Footballguy
It is quite hard to model what the virus is going to do when you don't know what policies will be instituted, and what the general populace will do in terms of altering their behavior. Thus the models initially calculated what they thought would happen with no policy or behavior changes. Seems as though the models have reacted to what is happening and have been updated accordingly
But that way of modelling will privide outlandish results everytime. There are always policies and reactions when things get serious. Ebola models showed hundreds of thousands of deaths in a few months if nothing was done.the moops said:
One of the biggest problems with the first models on COVID-19 is they assumed a higher motality rate.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Models are tools we use to inform. The fact that subsequent models using better data and incorporating policy reactions often yield different predictions is a feature, not a bug.
This shouldn’t be partisan.
Using exponential models to provide an enormously exagerated picture to drive political action is manipulative misinformation.
Sure, but we are taking of trillions and trillions of dollars in economic impact which will continue to impact us for years to come including negatively impact social security payments for decades. As a society we can not afford to expend tens of millions of dollars to extend the life of a sick 80-year old another year or two. That impact means there will be less money available for future medical care or food or infrastructure. The action we take needs to take into account the benefit. We do not have unlimited resources to save everyone nor do we want to live in a bubble everytime a bad virus hits. And as bad a COVID-19 is, it is very minor compared to several in the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Not sure what the baseline is, but we're something like 125k above it right now. And the people who would have died anyway are in that baseline.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
could you finish up your draft before you get banned again...
Or allow me to be your proxy?
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
what was the right mortality rate to use? How do you know what it is?
I think that this is a reasonable discussion to have, but there are lots of hypotheticals involved and we are going to need to keep counterfactuals at top of mind when trying to draw conclusions.
As originally modelled they assumed a mortality rate of 1 percent or some even more. The latest CDC estimates for case mortality rate:
Overall about 0.4%. (That drops to below 0.3% if you factor in that about 35 percent of people are asymptomatic).
0.05% for those younger than 50.
O.2% for those 50 to 64.
1.3% for those older than 65.
Typical flu is about 0.1%.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
how do you know that that the .4% mortality rate would not have been higher if there were not extreme measures taken?
Infection would have gone up. But mortality rates should stay very similar. The question is how much of a reduction could we of had with less extreme measures like the extensive use of masks and social distancing without all the shutdowns.
munga30
Checkin' my email
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
i guess i'm not sure that would be true. wasn't the point that if there were too many cases in the hospital, there would not be sufficient resources to treat them? would that not have prevented our ability to reduce the mortality rate?
also, with something like this, isn't the issue also that the potential for an uncontrollable spread could be so dangerous, there it is very difficult to use a straight EV/costs-benefits analysis?
That was one bill of goods which was sold to us, but that is not what the models assumed.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
At the beginning, I remember some noting the no-win nature of this thing politically. Shelter in place orders if successful would greatly reduce the casualties, which then lends to the “see, lawmakers overreacted” conspiracy theorists. Reminds me of the Obama administration making a significant effort to actively sign up folks for social welfare benefits as many studies show far more people were eligible than enlisted. Of course when the program was successful, critics labeled Obama the “food stamp president” because apparently getting people the social assistance they are eligible for is a bad thing.
After awhile, it’s not a coincidence that it’s the same people making shallow, bad faith arguments. I’ll leave it at that.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Why is following the guidance of infectious epidemiologists political? The idea that liberals actually enjoying supporting shelter in place policies is asinine.
I’m a liberal - I hate that we’re having to make these sacrifices as a country. This has nothing to do with politics. I’m not anti-freedom, I’m anti-death.
Last edited by a moderator:
As much as modelling and experts are great, you need to take worst-case scenario's with a grain of salt and understand the assumptuins and how much variation there is with more realistic adjustments to those assumptions. Democrats can make it political by using worst-case models to make extreme authoritarian actions.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
We really need to take a wait and see approach on Sweden. If they do achieve herd immunity and prevents a second wave and the US doesn't and has a second wave then the numbers will change dramatically.
And to that group the flu is deadlier. 120 death for children under 4 is pretty trypical. I don't think we even have 20 deaths in children of all ages due to COVID-19.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweden took another approach. They traded a higher death rate for not shutting down the economy. Theory was that it would get them significantly closer to herd immunity and that hasn’t proven to be true. They are at 7.3% of the population. Herd immunity is 70-90% meaning that they will need to experience what they have about 10 times more before getting to the lower end of herd immunity. That’s certainly not preventing a second wave.
Ok well they saved their economy right? Not exactly. They’re better off than other countries but still struggling. They’re more a preview of what we might see while opening up than model of how we should have done it.
You seem to be pretending that government actions alone drove the economic toll. The economy was going to suffer greatly no matter what governments did. Sweden's economy cratered too.
No, most of it had to do with th 24/7 overhyping the media has done. The government shutting down businesses was secondary.
Forbes has an interesting article out. It seems 43% of reported deaths occur from people who were in nursing homes. The stats are actually low because states like New York only count those who actually die while in the nursing home. If they are moved to a hospital, they are not counted. In states that don't exclude those, the numbers are like 70 or even 80 percent.
So let that sink in. The 0.6 percent of the population in nursing homes account for about 70 percent of the deaths. Outside the nursing homes were are looking at the common flu. Yeah, let's just shut our lifes down because of the flu. Talk about living scared.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I supported the more extreme measures due to the predictions of our health care systems being overburdened. We shouldn't be a society that can't take care of the sick and has people dying unnecessarily in hospital hallways. It's a matter of principle. It seems we've largely been able to avoid that and these measures certainly helped.
I largely agree with your view of the low mortality rate and general over-hyping of the dangers of the virus.
I also think society had a learning curve on how to deal with all this. It took a while for businesses and the public to adapt to being safer. For example, if you were going to grocery stores in March and April, it seemed every week they were doing new things to improve safety. When additional waves of the virus occur, I think businesses will be much more prepared to focus on safety without needing a more drastic shutdown.
Certainly i think this prepared us for how to minimalize future flu pandemics. Japan for instance has been doing some of this for years. I can remember flying to Toyoko ten years ago and most passengers were wearing masks. Three months ago you were a freak for wearing a mask in the US.
Similar threads
