Do you still go to your class?

[Gerry Seymour]

It turns out the virus isn't as harmless to younger folks as was thought. In the US, a large percentage of the cases requiring hospitalization are folks aged 20-59. I wonder how much of that is from folks taking NSAIDS to reduce the fever, which it now turns out makes COVID-19 worse.

 

[jobo]

It turns out the virus isn't as harmless to younger folks as was thought. In the US, a large percentage of the cases requiring hospitalization are folks aged 20-59. I wonder how much of that is from folks taking to reduce the fever, which it now turns out makes COVID-19 worse.

20 to 59 isn't really a recognised age range, ive seen nothing that strays from the accepted wisdom that its the older and or those with medical conditions particularly respiratory issue that are most at risk of actually dieing, that is no one as yet has died in the uk that doesnt fit that profile

 

[jobo]

It turns out the virus isn't as harmless to younger folks as was thought. In the US, a large percentage of the cases requiring hospitalization are folks aged 20-59. I wonder how much of that is from folks taking NSAIDS to reduce the fever, which it now turns out makes COVID-19 worse.

im also wondering how much social norms effect this, the British have quite a strong sense of personal space , particularly to the front when holding conversations, the Italians do not, who are well known for getting well within breathing distance when talking to you

 

[jobo]

It turns out the virus isn't as harmless to younger folks as was thought. In the US, a large percentage of the cases requiring hospitalization are folks aged 20-59. I wonder how much of that is from folks taking NSAIDS to reduce the fever, which it now turns out makes COVID-19 worse.

the data out of china, shows the mortality rate at one in a thousand for 20 yo and one in a hundred for 60 yo, and 15% for over 80s

what isnt at all clear if that is largely based on the greater chance of under lying health conditions or something else

of course it may have mutated so america has a special more deadly strain

 

[dvcochran]

Aus has progressed in terms of gatherings of people... it was no gatherings of 500. Then 100.

Now: "new indoor gathering limit for Australians.

There is now a four square metre rule for gatherings of less than 100 people.
“What we are now moving to is an arrangement for gatherings of less than 100, is that they would be four square metres provided per person in an enclosed space, in a room. So that’s 2m by 2m,” he said.

“So for example, if you’ve got a room, if you’ve got a premises, if you’ve got a meeting room or something like that, that’s 100 square metres, then you can have 25 people in that room.”"

This not my understanding of the rule. It is the distance from person. In theory you could have 25 people in a 100 square meter room but in reality the proximity of individuals would fall under the minimum distance at times.

 

[jobo]

This not my understanding of the rule. It is the distance from person. In theory you could have 25 people in a 100 square meter room but in reality the proximity of individuals would fall under the minimum distance at times.

well all the time unless people are going shout all their conversations and clearly getting a drink from two yards from the the bar is tricky

people are just making stuff up

 

[dvcochran]

well all the time unless people are going shout all their conversations and clearly getting a drink from two yards from the the bar is tricky

people are just making stuff up

The data will always be skewed because more people are getting tested for the specific strain. It will be interesting to see the data 2 years from now to see if the numbers for the flu are significantly higher.
I have read that the strain has already mutated twice. I do NOT know if this is fact.

 

[jobo]

The data will always be skewed because more people are getting tested for the specific strain. It will be interesting to see the data 2 years from now to see if the numbers for the flu are significantly higher.
I have read that the strain has already mutated twice. I do NOT know if this is fact.

it will have mutated 200,000 times, if thats enough that there are distinced differences between nations is a fact they are keeping to themselves but all most certainly so as the cases in each nation have come from only a few or maybe a single source and why they are so keen to shut borders

i think they will study this for centuries as-when the world was run by mass panic totally out of all proportion to the risk, saving a few thousand lives against the economic and social damage is a hard call

an intestst fact ive picked up, is that 8% of our dna is made up of virus dna, picked up by our distant ancestors and that our very evolution has been influenced by viruses,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

20 to 59 isn't really a recognised age range, ive seen nothing that strays from the accepted wisdom that its the older and or those with medical conditions particularly respiratory issue that are most at risk of actually dieing, that is no one as yet has died in the uk that doesnt fit that profile

The 20-59 folks (which is a recognizable category: adults who clearly aren't in the "elderly" high-risk group - probably why they reported it this way) aren't dying very often, as you said. However, they are being hostpitalized far more often than with something like influenza.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

im also wondering how much social norms effect this, the British have quite a strong sense of personal space , particularly to the front when holding conversations, the Italians do not, who are well known for getting well within breathing distance when talking to you

In the US, there's a pretty big social "personal space" gap in most situations, though I don't know how it would compare to what's normal among the British. It seems that would have an effect on transmission rates.

 

[jobo]

The 20-59 folks (which is a recognizable category: adults who clearly aren't in the "elderly" high-risk group - probably why they reported it this way) aren't dying very often, as you said. However, they are being hostpitalized far more often than with something like influenza.[/QUOTE

/QUOTE]

/QUOTE]

people in their 50 are indeed a high risk group, certainly a 100 times higher, than a 20 yo. that why just lumping them together is grossly misleading[

 

[jobo]

The 20-59 folks (which is a recognizable category: adults who clearly aren't in the "elderly" high-risk group - probably why they reported it this way) aren't dying very often, as you said. However, they are being hostpitalized far more often than with something like influenza.

people in their 50 are indeed a high risk group, certainly a 10 times higher, than a 20 yo. that why just lumping them together is grossly misleading[,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

people in their 50 are indeed a high risk group, certainly a 100 times higher, than a 20 yo. that why just lumping them together is grossly misleading

You're just arguing to argue. Take it up with the folks who put out the report.

 

[_Simon_]

This not my understanding of the rule. It is the distance from person. In theory you could have 25 people in a 100 square meter room but in reality the proximity of individuals would fall under the minimum distance at times.

Ahh ok yeah that makes sense. Yeah, like you could fit 25 people into that space, but they literally couldn't move without breaching that... so like you said, very much a distance thing!

 

[drop bear]

Yeah I do. Because screw it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

My grandad will be 120 this coming November. Sadly, he's been dead the past 23 years.

However my dad is alive and kicking, and really will be turning 95 on the 28th! I called him this morning to get some financial advice. He may not be as sharp as he once was, but he still knows more than I do!

That's great! My grandma, at 90, is one of the smartest people I know.

 

[Tez3]

people in their 50 are indeed a high risk group, certainly a 10 times higher, than a 20 yo. that why just lumping them together is grossly misleading[,

I don't know what is being reported in the US but this is what is being said here. 50 year olds are at a greater risk than 20year olds. Anyone who has underlying health problems is at risk.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't know what is being reported in the US but this is what is being said here. 50 year olds are at a greater risk than 20year olds. Anyone who has underlying health problems is at risk.

There's definitely an age factor even within the "not high risk" group (usually cited as "older", and usually assumed to mean beyond mid-60's by the public). The report I read just cited that a large portion of hospitalizations was among the 20-59 demographic group, proportionately higher than was initially expected. Unfortunately, it was a brief report and didn't subdivide this to show us the stats in more meaningful groups.

 

[jobo]

There's definitely an age factor even within the "not high risk" group (usually cited as "older", and usually assumed to mean beyond mid-60's by the public). The report I read just cited that a large portion of hospitalizations was among the 20-59 demographic group, proportionately higher than was initially expected. Unfortunately, it was a brief report and didn't subdivide this to show us the stats in more meaningful groups.

and you need to take into account the american system, these younger folk could just be rich people who have booked themselves in to hospital

with medical care based on wealth rather than need its largely meaningless, to look at hospital admissions as a measure

and where have you got THAT ASSUMPTION from, reading reports and sticking your own assumptions in is pointless, it just proves what ever your assumptions want it to prove

 

[dvcochran]

and you need to take into account the american system, these younger folk could just be rich people who have booked themselves in to hospital

with medical care based on wealth rather than need its largely meaningless, to look at hospital admissions as a measure

and where have you got THAT ASSUMPTION from, reading reports and sticking your own assumptions in is pointless, it just proves what ever your assumptions want it to prove

Where have you got the assumption that anyone in America cannot go to the doctor?
No one is going to be turned away.