PonyFans.com

That's a lot scarier than an outdoor venue

It’s not scary at all.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... -the-body/

Treatment for honeycomb lung is a lung transplant. I'd say that is pretty scary.

Looks scary. Need more data. Some caution is a good thing. Need to be wise about how much caution is too much. Mortality rate in the U.S. is still stuck at 100%.

PB- I think you are totally incorrect- you say the mortality rate is 100%- so you are implying that everybody who get the virus dies. Not so. Suggest you check more data.

If you're over 80 its hovering around 25%. 70-79 around 14%. 60-69 around 4% and below that is negligible. Overall about 3%.

Most of us wouldn't die from the virus, but many of those affected with symptoms have had some awful persistent and lingering issues stemming from the virus. We don't know who will be affected severely by the virus so I don't want to be one of those that catches it even if I likely wouldn't die from it.

redpony wrote:PB- I think you are totally incorrect- you say the mortality rate is 100%- so you are implying that everybody who get the virus dies. Not so. Suggest you check more data.

It's a policy discussion. I'm saying everyone dies of some cause, that all of this is a function of the value in dollars of prolonging a life, particularly the lives of many people who would pass within a relatively short period of time without COVID-19. To use an extreme example, do we want to return to the Stone Age so that we can give grandma two more weeks? I hope everyone -- including grandma -- would admit that, no, that's not a good tradeoff. So the question then becomes: where do we draw the line?

So I guess you're cool with abortion too since those babies will die eventually anyway!

No. Old people who die of COVID have at least had the opportunity to live their lives.

Let me be clear: While I certainly have an opinion, I don't claim to know the answer as to what we should do about this virus. But you cannot get around the question I ask above. It has to be taken into consideration. We cannot return to the Stone Age so that we can save one grandmother.

Given that, where do we draw the line?

Frankly, we need good leadership (universities, mayors, governors, presidents) to steer the masses. We didn't need to shut down the country if we simply exercised sound judgement. Mandate masks, no large gatherings, social distancing, etc. Do that and we survive this ordeal with much less economic and human casualty. Unfortunately we live in a world where too many people with little to no education propagate myths and conspiracies while denying science.

Agreed 100%, my friend.

By the way, I just ran the numbers on Texas (source: covidtracking.com) and it appears that the mortality rate in Texas is about 2 in 1000, about twice as deadly as the seasonal flu. Enough to shut down a good portion of the economy? Well, we do have to consider other factors: What helps the argument for the government to step in with the measures it has is the fact that it appears there are other negative effects, see for instance Dukie's reference to "honeycomb lung." But what hurts the argument are deaths (from delayed surgeries, stress, and the like) directly caused by state intervention. Plus whatever value you want to put on individual freedom. And then of course the loss of jobs, possible recession, and the huge debt we're accumulating and passing down to future generations.

I think there's a good chance government should have done nothing at all. I guess we shall see in the future, when all data is in and we can reasonably tally the cost. Hopefully we'll learn from the experience.

Remarkably in Virginia we've had twice as many flu deaths as COVID deaths in raw numbers.