According to the Worldometer (keeping in mind that the data changes, so you may see something different than I did when I wrote this), looking at COVID-19 deaths in terms of age tells us that 72% of the deaths in the U.S. are from people 65 years old and above. Between the ages of 45 and 64 there is another 23%. Less than 5% of the deaths from this virus have occurred below the age of 44. Interesting numbers. Under the age of 17, for instance, there is a total of 3 deaths reported.
Another statistic. According to the WHO, something like 80% of those who get this virus will have "mild symptoms." Beyond that, Live Science reported last month that up to 25% of people with COVID-19 don't show any symptoms at all. More recently, studies have upped that to perhaps 80%. Understand that this is difficult to analyze. People who have no symptoms will not normally be tested to be catalogued as cases of COVID-19, so it's hard to really tell. However, the CDC has been doing this for a long time -- looking at how many people have X virus and then estimating beyond that how many more had it that were never diagnosed. Regardless of the actual number, then, it appears that the vast majority of people with COVID-19 have either no symptoms or mild symptoms.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, adults ages 55 and above constitute 29% of the population of the United States and children (0-18) are almost a quarter of the population. More than 50% of the U.S. population falls inside the labor force group and outside the "at risk" category. Statista.com says that 26% of the world population is under 15 and 9% is over 65. That is, something like 91% of the world's population are not in the "at risk" spectrum. Yet, to save the world we've decided to put on hold the lives of all people as if this is a "one size fits all" virus. It isn't.
So ... why is it that the total effort to stop this virus is centered on everyone instead of the actual problem areas? How does that make sense?
I am not a "ditch it all and go back to normal" advocate. I am pro-life. I'm opposed to deaths that can be avoided (in general). I don't favor killing human beings in the womb or pulling the plug on old people because we want to. I wouldn't recommend saving an economy over life. So I don't favor just going back to the way things were.
I don't favor doing nothing, but why not do something smarter? Why not care for the sick and protect the older, most threatened people while not penalizing those who are not? Why stop all of the workforce when most of the workforce is not at risk? Why are we destroying everyone's lives to save lives when it doesn't appear that everyone is in peril? We do need to do something. Why not target the problems rather than a shotgun approach to everyone? Because it seems to me that this metaphorical shotgun could be bringing down a rather large number of lives of people who never were at risk. And I'm not alone thinking this way.
9 comments:
I was doing some research for MI yesterday, and the numbers for people above 60 jumped dramatically. Additionally 4 counties represented the vast majority of Wuhan deaths. So I agree that it seems like the wise course would be to target measures at the areas and demographics that are most at risk.
Of course the fact that NYC has been forcing nursing homes to take Wuhan patients, they've kept the subways running, and haven't cleaned to subway cars in months indicates that maybe they could be doing things differently.
I can't figure out why "the experts" don't agree. Thousands die from the flu every year and they don't recommend these measures, but this one ...? How many die from alcohol, but no one is suggesting drastic measures like, "No more alcohol!!" Seems like "the experts" are using different standards.
Part of why the experts don't agree is the fact that the models were horribly flawed and I don't think that they want to back down from worst case to cover themselves.
Obviously thousands die from the flu, (with a vaccine) look at some of the similar situations in the recent past and in no instance did we see this kind of response and lock down.
I think that we are at/past the point where we should be protecting the more vulnerable and allowing everyone else to get back to work. I suspect there is a political aspect, in the sense of wanting to avoid Trump getting credit for any success. I think there is a political aspect to the increasing demands for more free stuff.
Ultimately, it has to raise questions about any "scientific" prediction based entirely on models.
One upside is that it's exposing many on the political left to the concept of federalism.
One downside, as you point out, is the insistence on a one size fits all approach regardless of any actual data. Another is the increasing level of pressure to inform on people, and in the force (punishment) applied to people who want to salvage their businesses.
One last thought. Since we've moved from the failed models to somewhat more accurate data, we're definitely seeing people cherry pick data in order to support their personal (usually politically driven) agendas. Which is probably as big a mistake as trusting the models.
The Babylon Bee had Nancy Pelosi urging that this crisis continue until November so Trump can't get credit for an improved economy at the ballot box. It is satire, not serious, and I get that, but it does beg the question of motivation on the part of so many.
Good satire is merely an exaggeration of reality.
I definitely think that the response of the left contains a degree of hope that this will get bad enough or go long enough that it will affect the election.
To be fair, I don't think it's a conscious or active hope. At least, I hope not.
To be fair, I hope it isn't conscious or active. But I keep hearing people say things that indicate that it wouldn't be unwelcome.
Post a Comment