Everyone I work with, which I recognize is not the same as publishing a paper. I don’t know that a doctor needs to be the one to explain statistics, though. I get your point, I just don’t totally agree with it.
I think the bigger question is which credible healthcare provider is recommending these reactions? Even the CDC’s recommendations have been, essentially, the same as flu prevention. The closures have all been organizationally-led decisions, not only in the absence of data but in spite of it. The one restriction that is supported (and HCP-recommended) is avoiding cruise ships, which is based on their filtration systems and the size of this viral particle.
I typically don’t get into the off-topic stuff, and I’m not trying to get real opinionated here. All I am saying is that, statistically, the extreme reaction is not justified.
I just got decimated in the stock market today… Like decimated, completely annihilated. But i am definitely sure this will blow over, time to sell my other assets to buyback in. It’s really cheap guys.
To the original question… between my parents keeping me up with their banging, only being able to put on 45lbs in a couple of months, Tom Brady and now corona, do gainz really stand a chance?
Depends on which Europeans organisations and which Asian organisation you consider to fall under the term of credible health providers. The mortality rate from the virus alone is one thing, and it’ll be higher when healthcare systems are overwhelmed, but then too are the people who won’t be able to receive the care they’d ordinarily receive as the intensive care units are all full with people combating the virus.
The preemptive quarantine are to stymie these kinds of consequences. As is social withdrawal. I’m turning in just now, so any replies to replies will take a few hours.
For social distancing to work, it must be done early on when it seems to be an overreaction. If we get the timing right, it will work, and it’ll in hindsight seem as if we overreacted and a lot of people will exclaim “There was no reason to panic! (and do all that stuff)”
I hope everyone, and theirs, will remain healthy or at least develop the most benign symptoms.
Undeniably true. And, to be fair, I tied too many definitions into a couple sentences there.
This is simply not logically valid; you’re making far too many assumptions. You don’t have to accept my leap that the low sample and underreported cases have us overestimating the mortality rate, but you certainly can’t assume we won’t improve treatment and triage with exposure, patients are being universally hospitalized, admission rates will rise exponentially, the same physicians are both emergency and specialty medicine (as you imply with the indirect mortality rate from other illness that will now be untreated), or that health systems can be overwhelmed with, what appears to be, 18% of the population becoming symptomatic. Further, we don’t currently believe this virus can survive in sustained temperatures over 50°, so we have about three weeks, in the northern hemisphere, for this doomsday scenario to manifest. Finally, if this overwhelms a system, that may be a symptom of a systemic flaw (healthcare is complex, so I’m not saying this negatively).
I see this as an emotional argument, which is my very point. We are choosing very real economic consequence for potentially negligent gains. This may be the right answer; I’m not saying what we should do - my entire point was that the current statistics do not support our response (my implication there is that this response is disproportionate relative to our recent history). It’s like amputating a limb for a minor wound because it might lead to an infection that you then might not be able to control. 150 years ago, that was hands-down the right decision; now, it probably isn’t. There was some transition between those points where it’s a judgement call - maybe that’s where we are.
This is 100% valid. To be fair, I mentioned social withdrawal. It’s a question of degree, but social distancing is a logical step and in-line with normal viral prevention protocols (i.e. the statistics support it).
In any case, I do agree the last thing we should do now is reverse stance. The economic damage is done, and it’s time to see these protocols out so that we do reap the reward. I do believe every life is precious, and I hope these countermeasures are effective. I simply believe we created a panic that will also negatively impact life (I’m not making a direct corollary to the Hippocratic oath because it’s not apt, but some bit of the concept is there for irony). I’m certainly not the guy saying “what the entire planet should do is:”. That would be ridiculous. My entire point, complete and total, was (relative to our recent history) this reaction was disproportionate to the statistics.
I probably will not put another $0.02 in on the subject, because I think I’m painting myself as an advocate for one course of action or the other, and that’s really not my goal.
Encouraging social distancing, allowing people to work from home when possible, and closing events that aren’t an absolute necessity sounds like a good idea.
The severe downturn in the stock market seems to be pure panic-mongering. But, then again, since when does the stock market operate on any sense of logic to begin with?
This doesn’t make any sense. The healthcare system is always overwhelmed. That’s why patients are asked to wait for appointments or have their treatment delayed/postponed depending on the severity of the disease or issue they have. That’s also why, no matter where you live, the base cost of treatment for severe issues are very high. Each healthcare system seems to simply dictate where the masking of the cost will occur, but it doesn’t remove the fact that the cost is high to begin with.
The COVID-19 pandemic will likely put even more stress onto an overwhelmed and incredibly stressed system, but it seems disingenuous to me for there to be suddenly lots of news articles about how overwhelmed hospitals when they don’t normally give a shit about it in other times.
I’m a health care professional. We had a meeting early part of this week and we all rolled our eyes over it. Of course we will take precautions but it’s the same precautions we take for everything else. 54% of the US population doesn’t get a flu shot every year. A disease we know kills at least 12,000 ppl a year and has killed many many more than that in certain years. (These are CDC numbers) yet knowing we have a “flu season” and that it kills many ppl every year over half the population doesn’t get a shot that’s free or at most 5 bucks? But now we’re all losing our shit…
Swine flu 10 years ago killed 15,500 put 300k in the hospital and 61,000,000 Americans got it alone. No mass hysteria present, nothing shut down and was extremely contagious.
If everyone wants to freak out go for it. I have better things to worry about.
As for stock market, in 1-2 months it’ll be a full rebound and someone that invests properly will make a lot of money.
It stands to reason that the mortality rate is overestimated, given the givens. So, I do accept it.
Am I assuming that?
As I understand it, patients aren’t being universally hospitalized in Italy and their healthcare system is overwhelmed.
I’m not confident that the issue is not having an adequate amount of medical personnel available. One example, under the presumption that the providing healthcare system is overwhelmed, would-be patients that are ordinarily immuno-compromised that will have a harder time accessing the care that they’d otherwise need. Since, in the scenario, the hospital is overwhelmed it is very likely that the patient catches the virus and ultimately dies from it but then in fairness that won’t be indirect mortality. Perhaps I need to give this more thought.
Not sure what percentage the overwhelmed regions in Italy are at, is it above 18%?
I haven’t been exposed to that information. But, good news!
I won’t speak for any other nation and their systems, nor am I intimately familiar with my own except being a repeat patient. Our healthcare is free, and we have a guarantee to receive care within three months. Granted, the greater the immediacy of your problem, the quicker you receive care. Historically, during other pandemics, my nation has had a greater amount of hospital beds per capita and still saw systematic failure. Since then, I acknowledge that healthcare practices have improved, so this is a very isolated metric to make any extrapolations from, but it’s not exactly comforting.
It absolutely is an emotional argument. I appreciate the metaphor, it was good and made me chuckle. Cheers.
Depending on your definition of recent history, here’s an interesting excerpt,
When the influenza epidemic of 1918 infected a quarter of the U.S. population, killing hundreds of thousands nationally and millions across the globe, seemingly small choices made the difference between life and death.
As the disease was spreading, Wilmer Krusen, Philadelphia’s health commissioner, allowed a huge parade to take place on September 28; some 200,000 people marched. In the following days and weeks, the bodies piled up in the city’s morgues. By the end of the season, 12,000 residents had died.
I don’t see it as if you are/were. I appreciate the discourse.
I used to be in finance. Not only is the system not logical, it is frail.
I like your definition of overwhelmed, because if more people thought it to be an unacceptable state maybe it’d be amended. But, I don’t think that is what it actually means for a healthcare system to be overwhelmed.
Even during this, I imagine a survivor of a gnarly car-crash will receive emergency care. But will all in need of immediate care be able to get it? Once the answer to that becomes “no” I think that is a good example of overwhelmed. Or, if a patient tests positive for the virus but is very unlikely to survive and isn’t treated as a result that too would classify as overwhelmed in my mind.
I feel this statement is not applicable globally.
I believe this is a consequence of human nature, now we are presented with a scenario where many people themselves can be directly impacted by catching the virus themselves or having immediate family members catch it. It’s like deaths brought on by preventable starvation, most in western society don’t die from that, and thus the uproar regarding that topic isn’t nearly as ferocious. We are the 1% globally and the 99% locally and what-not.
Given the level of news saturation on this topic, I hope no one gets annoyed with me for bringing it up here, but I’m curious whether my fellow powerlifters are avoiding the gym over this. Personally, I am not, but I am going later at night when it is less crowded, and of course washing up thoroughly before leaving, etc. I understand the need to be very careful right now, but my understanding is that no health authority is suggesting that symptom-free people need to avoid the gym. And like most of us, I would be seriously depressed if I couldn’t work out. Just curious about others’ thoughts, practices, precautions, etc. Thanks!
