Cont: The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread pt. 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
50198842296_afc809c1ae_c_d.jpg


This was the lates list of ages I could find
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities
https://wonder.cdc.gov/population-projections-2014-2060.html
 
While children are far less likely to die from the coronavirus than adults, more studies are showing that kids can contract and spread it – contrary to claims made by Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

A study out of South Korea shows children who are at least 10 years old can transmit Covid-19 within a household just as much as adults can.

In the US, a CDC study showed more than half of the children ages 6 to 10 who attended a Georgia summer camp in June and got tested for Covid-19 tested positive. The study – which examined test results following a camp that more than 600 children and 120 staffers attended – found that 51% of those ages 6 to 10 tested positive; 44% of those ages 11 to 17 tested positive; and 33% of those ages 18 to 21 tested positive.
(CNN Newsletter, Aug. 7, 2020)
Click to expand...


What we know about coronavirus risks to school age children (CNN, July 10, 2020)

More links to studies about children and Covid-19
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
So what?

Those 160,000 people don't matter because more people die of other causes? What kind of logic is that?

We usually try to diminish deaths from various causes. In the case of heart disease you have diet and medication and exercise and whatnot, and in the case of a new disease you have other means to keep it in check. I don't see what you think the problem is.
Click to expand...

Should they be forced to diet and exercise?
Because of the high number heart disease deaths many are not your only solution is telling them to diet and exercise.
 
Gavin said:
Should they be forced to diet and exercise?
Because of the high number heart disease deaths many are not your only solution is telling them to diet and exercise.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, if I get a heart attack, I don't wander around for 2 weeks prior to having it spreading heart attacks to anyone I get near while showing zero symptoms myself.
 
kookbreaker said:
Last I checked, if I get a heart attack, I don't wander around for 2 weeks prior to having it spreading heart attacks to anyone I get near while showing zero symptoms myself.
Click to expand...

So we should only take protective measures for covid and nothing else?
 
kookbreaker said:
Last I checked, if I get a heart attack, I don't wander around for 2 weeks prior to having it spreading heart attacks to anyone I get near while showing zero symptoms myself.
Click to expand...

Expected death numbers suggest that a fairly large number of COVID-19 deaths are being recorded as heart attacks or strokes. The likely mechanism would be the increased blood clotting that has been documented as being caused by COVID-19 infection.


While you are infected with COVID-19 you could ultimately die from a heart attack and along the way you could spread it to someone else who also dies from a heart attack.
 
Gavin said:
My question was do just stay locked down until there is a vaccine which could be a year or more I suppose we will all be starving and homeless but didn’t get covid
Click to expand...

Mmm. Your question's a bit off. The actual underlying principle that's been pushed from the start is that the problem should be brought under control and then kept under control. The abject failure of the Trump Administration to have taken appropriate measures and the way that the Republican Party has followed his lead in actively working to downplay the problem and then undermining or destroying the efforts to get things under control after their failures let it get wildly out of control in the first place has left us in a position where massive and quite preventable damage and extreme preventable costs have occurred across the board.

The same underlying principle is still in play. Get things under control and use appropriate measures to keep things well under control and any lockdowns will be very local and much, much shorter in duration, while social disruption in general will be minimized. The more that getting and keeping things under control is fought against, the worse things end up in the long run and the longer the nightmare goes on. None of us want endless lockdowns, either, of course. We want things to get back to as close to normal as possible and as fast as possible, too - it's just that we recognize that things aren't going to get that way until the public health crisis is handled properly. The economy and pretty much everything else simply isn't going to have any chance of becoming healthy again until that happens - and the longer it takes to get under control, the worse the permanent damage gets.
 
Last edited:
Gavin said:
So we should only take protective measures for covid and nothing else?
Click to expand...

The protective measures which can be taken against different diseases vary enormously. For non infectious diseases it's almost entirely down to the individual - don't smoke, eat sensibly etc. For a highly infectious disease which can be transmitted whilst asymptomatic a nationally (ideally internationally) coordinated response is required.
 
Pixel42 said:
The protective measures which can be taken against different diseases vary enormously. For non infectious diseases it's almost entirely down to the individual - don't smoke, eat sensibly etc. For a highly infectious disease which can be transmitted whilst asymptomatic a nationally (ideally internationally) coordinated response is required.
Click to expand...
What other coordinated response did we have transmitted disease other then covid?
If masks and social distancing work why would be need for anything else?
 
Last edited:
Gavin said:
What other coordinated response did we have transmitted disease other then covid?
If masks and social distancing work why would be need for anything else?
Click to expand...

1918 Flu
SARS
Ebola
Polio
"Mad Cow"

Those are just a few of the infectious diseases that have resulted in national level responses from various governments. COVID-19 is simply the most recent.
 
Aridas said:
Mmm. Your question's a bit off. The actual underlying principle that's been pushed from the start is that the problem should be brought under control and then kept under control. The abject failure of the Trump Administration to have taken appropriate measures and the way that the Republican Party has followed his lead in actively working to downplay the problem and then undermining or destroying the efforts to get things under control after their failures let it get wildly out of control in the first place has left us in a position where massive and quite preventable damage and extreme preventable costs have occurred across the board.

The same underlying principle is still in play. Get things under control and use appropriate measures to keep things well under control and any lockdowns will be very local and much, much shorter in duration, while social disruption in general will be minimized. The more that getting and keeping things under control is fought against, the worse things end up in the long run and the longer the nightmare goes on. None of us want endless lockdowns, either, of course. We want things to get back to as close to normal as possible and as fast as possible, too - it's just that we recognize that things aren't going to get that way until the public health crisis is handled properly. The economy and pretty much everything else simply isn't going to have any chance of becoming healthy again until that happens - and the longer it takes to get under control, the worse the permanent damage gets.
Click to expand...

They don’t know how long that will take and if it will not rise again after the lockdowns
 
Border Reiver said:
1918 Flu
SARS
Ebola
Polio
"Mad Cow"

Those are just a few of the infectious diseases that have resulted in national level responses from various governments. COVID-19 is simply the most recent.
Click to expand...
And they had complete lockdowns for all of those?
 
Gavin said:
They don’t know how long that will take and if it will not rise again after the lockdowns
Click to expand...

What they do know is that other countries have used a lockdown period of 2-4 weeks, strictly enforced said lockdown, then were able to move to a more relaxed posture using physical distancing and masks to contain and control the virus with spikes of far lower frequency than the US is experiencing.
 
Gavin said:
And they had complete lockdowns for all of those?
Click to expand...

1918 flu - yes, in many areas
polio - yes, this resulted in shut downs in areas where the disease happened
mad cow - mass cullings of ALL infected or potentially infected cattle in various countries occurred.
 
Border Reiver said:
1918 flu - yes, in many areas
polio - yes, this resulted in shut downs in areas where the disease happened
mad cow - mass cullings of ALL infected or potentially infected cattle in various countries occurred.
Click to expand...


Though there was no cure, and no vaccine, there was a long incubation period before symptoms would reveal themselves, and while there was a great deal of confusion about how it was transmitted, the thought of locking down an entire state, nation, or world was inconceivable. The concept of a universal “shelter in place” order was nowhere imaginable. Efforts to impose “social distancing” were selective and voluntary.*

https://www.aier.org/article/no-lockdowns-the-terrifying-polio-pandemic-of-1949-52/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom