COVID-19

Everything Wyoming Cowboy and Mountain West football!
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

wwplayer wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:26 pm
ragtimejoe1 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:25 pm Here's some math:

Ballpark of 70% of the population is 54 and under = roughly 230 million people.
According to the CDC, age 49 and under have a .01% hospitalization rate 10/100,000.
Also according to the CDC, 10% of adults who are hospitalized have no known prior health conditions.

230 million people x .01% hospitalization rate = 23,000 hospitalizations
Of the 23,000 hospitalizations, we should be able to categorize at least 80% of those to keep in quarantine.

That means, letting everyone under 50-54 out of quarantine runs the risk of having 4,600 unknown hospitalizations.

Going further, total of 1,453 deaths from COVID19 in the crowd under 54 (again most of those with underlying health conditions) and 3,274 pneumonia deaths where influenza or COVID aren't listed as disease.

Something doesn't add up to me??

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... index.html
Interesting, maybe even convincing, math, but it only takes into consideration those who are hospitalized. What about all of the people with the virus who are asymptomatic, those with mild cases, those who have the virus for number of days before they start to get (a little/a lot/dead) sick. They are all carriers. That's where the problem really lies. Not with the ones in the hospital.
The stats take that into consideration. Those under 50 just don't get that sick even considering underlying health conditions. Those you refer to are in the dead stats which are less than pneumonia.

Something isn't adding up.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lock ... weeks.html

I'm starting to think we've been duped.

Why do we need parameters (i.e. 0 infections and 0 deaths) for the entire population instead of sorting the population into risk categories? If we get 0 new hospitalizations and 0 new deaths in everyone under 50 with no known health problems, why keep that demographic locked down?

People need to start asking hard questions of our leadership.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
bladerunnr
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:45 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 65 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:05 am https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lock ... weeks.html

I'm starting to think we've been duped.

Why do we need parameters (i.e. 0 infections and 0 deaths) for the entire population instead of sorting the population into risk categories? If we get 0 new hospitalizations and 0 new deaths in everyone under 50 with no known health problems, why keep that demographic locked down?

People need to start asking hard questions of our leadership.
Well, some of us have been. But frankly, the general public is so scared that posters like West wyo poke calls those who want to go out in public murderers. So, when unemployment gets to 25 percent, and we start to have food shortages, people will start to think about the trade offs the stay at home orders are creating. When colleges start cancelling in person fall classes and all athletic events are cancelled, then we will begin to question the path were on.
User avatar
WestWYOPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:35 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 8 times

bladerunnr wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:51 am
ragtimejoe1 wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:05 am https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lock ... weeks.html

I'm starting to think we've been duped.

Why do we need parameters (i.e. 0 infections and 0 deaths) for the entire population instead of sorting the population into risk categories? If we get 0 new hospitalizations and 0 new deaths in everyone under 50 with no known health problems, why keep that demographic locked down?

People need to start asking hard questions of our leadership.
Well, some of us have been. But frankly, the general public is so scared that posters like West wyo poke calls those who want to go out in public murderers. So, when unemployment gets to 25 percent, and we start to have food shortages, people will start to think about the trade offs the stay at home orders are creating. When colleges start cancelling in person fall classes and all athletic events are cancelled, then we will begin to question the path were on.
What in the world are you talking about??? I've made one post in this thread, it related to xenophobic comments, I've only made ONE other comment on all of WyoNation relating to Covid and it was basically to explain flattening the curve.

That's it...2 posts (not counting this one). And nowhere have I called anyone murderers. In fact, the only real commentary I've made on this whole ordeal is that things were being a bit overblown (over a month ago).
Image
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

As we learn more, I'm starting to think the days of living in fear are ending. I'm getting more optimistic that there will be football. Though not announced, I'm really thinking our strategy will be shifting soon.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/nearly-a ... tudy-finds
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
CowboyNV
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1585
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Nevada/Florida
Been liked: 7 times

I have a personal story about COVID-19. My daughter fell ill about 4 days ago. She is 41, and in good health. She developed a fever, tightness in her chest, cough, and some other issues. She lives in Colorado. She called the ER and they said to come in. They asked her some ridiculous questions (overseas travel in the past two weeks, time in China, etc.) and then took some blood and did a chest x-ray. They told her after about 6 hours that she wasn't sick enough to warrant a test, but they did suspect COVID. She was sent home with a prescription for an inhaler and a ZPak. They called the next day to see how she was doing. Her O2 levels were around 90 with a fever and cough. They had her come back in, ran the same tests, and again told her they didn't have many tests available and they were saved for only the sickest people. She was sent home with the diagnosis of "probable coronavirus infection." Her O2 levels dropped to 87 when up and walking but went back up to 90 at rest yesterday, so they had her come in again. Same old BS and then sent her home with instructions to come back if her symptoms worsened. Same diagnosis of "probably coronavirus infection." Today she's about the same, no better and no worse, but hanging in there.

Now to my point. If we are not going to test for this, and just write a script for an inhaler and a ZPak, and send folks home, why in the hell did they shut down the entire world? I get not wanting to infect others, but WTF? Without a test, she will never be listed as having COVID.
She won't be counted in the numbers. Doesn't that lack of testing elevate the mortality rate? I would posit that the mortality rate is a hell of a lot lower because we don't have a good number based on real data. I listen to the talking heads at the federal and state level, and all I hear is how things are better. How the f-word do they know that if they are only testing the sickest? I agree with social distancing, masks, and avoiding big crowds, but I fail to see how 3 trips to the ER for nothing helps anybody. To make matters worse, because she doesn't have a test result that states she is positive for COVID, her company will not pay her the 10 days of COVID related leave. She will be forced to use sick leave and vacation pay.

Anyway, sorry for the rant but it's this kind of poop that really ticks me off. If they weren't going to test people to get a definitive diagnosis, then let''s just treat it like any other virus and let folks get on with their lives. At this stage, all of these numbers they are putting together about how many tested, how many recovered, how many died is utter bull poop because of the huge number of folks they send home never knowing.

:twocents:
What is the difference between politicians and stoners? Politicians don't inhale...they just suck.
User avatar
MrTitleist
WyoNation Overlord
Posts: 10511
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: Missoula, MT
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 31 times

Maybe if we had tests we could test everyone.. but we've been failed. My sister is doing COVID testing and she suspects way more people have it, but since there's no tests, no way to know. They literally are not getting tests to give to people. Hard to imagine that reopening a national and global economy won't have some predictable negative results due to the lack of measurable information available to us.
ImageImageImageImage
Adv8RU12
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 3180
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:07 pm
Been liked: 5 times

There are two numbers about the tests that the vendors seem to not want to be revealed.

They relate to false positives and false negatives.

The numbers are:

1) SENSITIVITY - The probability that you HAVE the condition if the test says you have it.
2) SPECIFICITY - the probability that you DON'T HAVE the condition if the test says you don't have it.

They must know these numbers. Maybe they figure that most people are to dumb to understand what they mean.
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

Sorry to hear about your daughter CowboyNV; keep us posted and wish her well.

This is also interesting. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -covid-19/

Mexico should be (hopefully not) a recipe for disaster, but notice they are relatively young. Perhaps they dodge a bullet because they are young.

If the demographic data is correct, your risk of a severe case or death is almost 0 if you are younger than 50 with no hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes. For the life of me, I can't figure out why we aren't using that kind of information to formulate a new strategy. The quarantine approach is a never ending cycle. Just today, China locks down another city. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... n-21914413

Even considering the LA data of 4% of the population had been exposed from Feb-April, that's a little over 1% a month. I'm sure that drops under quarantine measures. We have to get to 60%+ immunity which will take years unless a vaccine is developed. The other problem with this strategy is that 1) it assumes an effective vaccine will be generated 2) immunity will be long lasting 3) the virus won't mutate sufficiently to require another vaccine. If any of those 3 assumptions are wrong, what we are doing is futile. I think those 3 assumptions are huge and much more likely that one of those fail than all 3 be 100% correct.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

OK, last one, I promise. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm only putting this information out there so you can ask your state regulators about it.

Here it is broken out nicely:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... tm#T1_down

Rates of hospitalization for age 18-49 = 2.5/100,000
Of those hospitalized in that age group 85% had an underlying health condition.

Simple math, we can reduce the 2.5 by 85% which means if we released every adult under 49 without an underlying health condition, we can expect 0.375 hospitalizations/100,000 and likely almost 0 deaths. If you take all of the WY population (assuming everyone is 18-49), that is like 1-2 hospitalizations in the state (obviously there are more because the entire population isn't under 50 and healthy).

Where I'm at, the death rate is 3% with 98.5% of those having underlying health conditions. 1 or 2 deaths are being investigated and suspected but not confirmed underlying health conditions. The hospitalization rate is around 5% with 90% of those having underlying health conditions. Both the death rate and hospitalization rate are based on those testing positive, so likely much lower when considering those exposed.

I mean this sincerely, am I missing something here? I fully grasp the dangers to the over 50 crowd and those with underlying health problems, but what am I not understanding relative to the near 0 risk for under 50 and no health problems? Seriously, if I'm ignorant to something I'd like to know because I just don't understand.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
wwplayer
Buckaroo
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:46 pm
Been liked: 8 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:57 pm OK, last one, I promise. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm only putting this information out there so you can ask your state regulators about it.

Here it is broken out nicely:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... tm#T1_down

Rates of hospitalization for age 18-49 = 2.5/100,000
Of those hospitalized in that age group 85% had an underlying health condition.

Simple math, we can reduce the 2.5 by 85% which means if we released every adult under 49 without an underlying health condition, we can expect 0.375 hospitalizations/100,000 and likely almost 0 deaths. If you take all of the WY population (assuming everyone is 18-49), that is like 1-2 hospitalizations in the state (obviously there are more because the entire population isn't under 50 and healthy).

Where I'm at, the death rate is 3% with 98.5% of those having underlying health conditions. 1 or 2 deaths are being investigated and suspected but not confirmed underlying health conditions. The hospitalization rate is around 5% with 90% of those having underlying health conditions. Both the death rate and hospitalization rate are based on those testing positive, so likely much lower when considering those exposed.

I mean this sincerely, am I missing something here? I fully grasp the dangers to the over 50 crowd and those with underlying health problems, but what am I not understanding relative to the near 0 risk for under 50 and no health problems? Seriously, if I'm ignorant to something I'd like to know because I just don't understand.
I can understand your frustration and your questioning. In a state like Wyoming there already is a fair amount of social distancing inherent due to low population density.etc. so the problem just may naturally not look as daunting. In a city like here in Chicago, a much different story. In a tight place like NYC - fuggidaboudit! The only way we're ever going to really know is through testing. Lots and lots of testing. Covid testing, antibody testing, whatever. Compare us to South Korea, where they were on it right away, or Germany, where they dropped the ball for a little while, then really got after it. As this is a national health emergency, what is needed is a COHERENT national response. The Federal Government has failed HORRIBLY in it's responsibility for taking care of the American public. Making the states fend for themselves, even compete for resources is BULLS&%T. But, at least, then the buck will stop ......... elsewhere, Right?
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

wwplayer wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:36 pm
ragtimejoe1 wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:57 pm OK, last one, I promise. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm only putting this information out there so you can ask your state regulators about it.

Here it is broken out nicely:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... tm#T1_down

Rates of hospitalization for age 18-49 = 2.5/100,000
Of those hospitalized in that age group 85% had an underlying health condition.

Simple math, we can reduce the 2.5 by 85% which means if we released every adult under 49 without an underlying health condition, we can expect 0.375 hospitalizations/100,000 and likely almost 0 deaths. If you take all of the WY population (assuming everyone is 18-49), that is like 1-2 hospitalizations in the state (obviously there are more because the entire population isn't under 50 and healthy).

Where I'm at, the death rate is 3% with 98.5% of those having underlying health conditions. 1 or 2 deaths are being investigated and suspected but not confirmed underlying health conditions. The hospitalization rate is around 5% with 90% of those having underlying health conditions. Both the death rate and hospitalization rate are based on those testing positive, so likely much lower when considering those exposed.

I mean this sincerely, am I missing something here? I fully grasp the dangers to the over 50 crowd and those with underlying health problems, but what am I not understanding relative to the near 0 risk for under 50 and no health problems? Seriously, if I'm ignorant to something I'd like to know because I just don't understand.
I can understand your frustration and your questioning. In a state like Wyoming there already is a fair amount of social distancing inherent due to low population density.etc. so the problem just may naturally not look as daunting. In a city like here in Chicago, a much different story. In a tight place like NYC - fuggidaboudit! The only way we're ever going to really know is through testing. Lots and lots of testing. Covid testing, antibody testing, whatever. Compare us to South Korea, where they were on it right away, or Germany, where they dropped the ball for a little while, then really got after it. As this is a national health emergency, what is needed is a COHERENT national response. The Federal Government has failed HORRIBLY in it's responsibility for taking care of the American public. Making the states fend for themselves, even compete for resources is BULLS&%T. But, at least, then the buck will stop ......... elsewhere, Right?
Meh, I had a long drawn out response, but I'll leave it at this. I think the decisions that are being made will be looked back on as the worst in US history. We are sacrificing the future of our country with a response to try to contain an enemy that can't be contained. These futile efforts are doing nothing more than ensuring that 99.7% of the population (those who survive) will face economic hardships not seen since the great depression and we have mortgaged the future of several generations.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
bladerunnr
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:45 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 65 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:18 am
wwplayer wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:36 pm
ragtimejoe1 wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:57 pm OK, last one, I promise. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm only putting this information out there so you can ask your state regulators about it.

Here it is broken out nicely:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... tm#T1_down

Rates of hospitalization for age 18-49 = 2.5/100,000
Of those hospitalized in that age group 85% had an underlying health condition.

Simple math, we can reduce the 2.5 by 85% which means if we released every adult under 49 without an underlying health condition, we can expect 0.375 hospitalizations/100,000 and likely almost 0 deaths. If you take all of the WY population (assuming everyone is 18-49), that is like 1-2 hospitalizations in the state (obviously there are more because the entire population isn't under 50 and healthy).

Where I'm at, the death rate is 3% with 98.5% of those having underlying health conditions. 1 or 2 deaths are being investigated and suspected but not confirmed underlying health conditions. The hospitalization rate is around 5% with 90% of those having underlying health conditions. Both the death rate and hospitalization rate are based on those testing positive, so likely much lower when considering those exposed.

I mean this sincerely, am I missing something here? I fully grasp the dangers to the over 50 crowd and those with underlying health problems, but what am I not understanding relative to the near 0 risk for under 50 and no health problems? Seriously, if I'm ignorant to something I'd like to know because I just don't understand.
I can understand your frustration and your questioning. In a state like Wyoming there already is a fair amount of social distancing inherent due to low population density.etc. so the problem just may naturally not look as daunting. In a city like here in Chicago, a much different story. In a tight place like NYC - fuggidaboudit! The only way we're ever going to really know is through testing. Lots and lots of testing. Covid testing, antibody testing, whatever. Compare us to South Korea, where they were on it right away, or Germany, where they dropped the ball for a little while, then really got after it. As this is a national health emergency, what is needed is a COHERENT national response. The Federal Government has failed HORRIBLY in it's responsibility for taking care of the American public. Making the states fend for themselves, even compete for resources is BULLS&%T. But, at least, then the buck will stop ......... elsewhere, Right?
Meh, I had a long drawn out response, but I'll leave it at this. I think the decisions that are being made will be looked back on as the worst in US history. We are sacrificing the future of our country with a response to try to contain an enemy that can't be contained. These futile efforts are doing nothing more than ensuring that 99.7% of the population (those who survive) will face economic hardships not seen since the great depression and we have mortgaged the future of several generations.
I totally agree. But I would add that the general public is complicit in all of these poor decisions. Very few people are questioning the trampling of their rights by a bunch of politicians who always take the easy way out. By that, I mean that it's easy to make draconian rules to protect "public health". Let's just print more money. Well, the long term effects of all this deficit spending will drag the economy down for years, if not decades, to come. Not to mention the quality of life of the average American is drastically affected socially as well.

One quick response to the poster above: The German economy is sinking faster than at any time since WWII. They've cancelled all sporting events through October. One last point: How do you have a "coherent" national response when the medical "experts" have been guessing from day 1. First the WHO said the virus wasn't transmissible from human to human. Then they said masks are not necessary. I could go on and on, but I won't. People have made up their minds that they will hibernate until it's safe to come out. That day may never come.
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

OK, I said I would stop, but I can't, lol. TIDES ARE CHANGING. Science and data will prevail. Read this and yes, it is by an MD.

Open this b!tch up and let's get back to it!!!!!! Everything else is political posturing at the moment. They created this mess and are trying to not be the one stuck holding the bag. I don't blame them at all. When this first started, it was scary as hell. We were looking to Italy which looked awful. However, we have our own data now; adjust our approach.

Why do we care about infection rate? Fix hospitalization and death rate. If 10 million or 100 million people are infected and clear it, who cares? You protect hospitalization and death rate by using the data we have and protecting those people.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/ ... q8gpGdXzck
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
User avatar
LanderPoke
WyoNation Lifer
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:47 pm
Location: Laramie
Has liked: 584 times
Been liked: 236 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:05 am https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lock ... weeks.html

I'm starting to think we've been duped.

Why do we need parameters (i.e. 0 infections and 0 deaths) for the entire population instead of sorting the population into risk categories? If we get 0 new hospitalizations and 0 new deaths in everyone under 50 with no known health problems, why keep that demographic locked down?

People need to start asking hard questions of our leadership.
+1. Stupidest thing in the world that we're locking down the entire population.
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

Ok, I have a first hand account of a death being deemed COVID when it wasn't. A person I know mother-in-law passed away from a heart attack. No symptoms of COVID and no positive test. When the death certificate was issued, it said cause of death was COVID. They complained and the hospital representative told them "we were told to do this and there is nothing we can do about it now".
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
User avatar
J-Bone
Ranch Hand
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: Sheridan, WY
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 11 times

Hospitals are being financially incentivized to code patients with COVID, even without tests.

“Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000,” Jensen said on the Fox program. “If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [have] impact on what we do.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/yes-hosp ... een-tested
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5114
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

J-Bone wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:34 pm Hospitals are being financially incentivized to code patients with COVID, even without tests.

“Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000,” Jensen said on the Fox program. “If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [have] impact on what we do.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/yes-hosp ... een-tested
Poses a bit of a problem when one of the criteria for lifting quarantine is declining death rate.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
User avatar
LanderPoke
WyoNation Lifer
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:47 pm
Location: Laramie
Has liked: 584 times
Been liked: 236 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:50 am Ok, I have a first hand account of a death being deemed COVID when it wasn't. A person I know mother-in-law passed away from a heart attack. No symptoms of COVID and no positive test. When the death certificate was issued, it said cause of death was COVID. They complained and the hospital representative told them "we were told to do this and there is nothing we can do about it now".
:x
Expat_Poke
Ranch Hand
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:58 pm
Location: Under the evening shadow of the Big Horns
Been liked: 3 times

wwplayer wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:36 pm
ragtimejoe1 wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:57 pm OK, last one, I promise. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm only putting this information out there so you can ask your state regulators about it.

Here it is broken out nicely:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... tm#T1_down

Rates of hospitalization for age 18-49 = 2.5/100,000
Of those hospitalized in that age group 85% had an underlying health condition.

Simple math, we can reduce the 2.5 by 85% which means if we released every adult under 49 without an underlying health condition, we can expect 0.375 hospitalizations/100,000 and likely almost 0 deaths. If you take all of the WY population (assuming everyone is 18-49), that is like 1-2 hospitalizations in the state (obviously there are more because the entire population isn't under 50 and healthy).

Where I'm at, the death rate is 3% with 98.5% of those having underlying health conditions. 1 or 2 deaths are being investigated and suspected but not confirmed underlying health conditions. The hospitalization rate is around 5% with 90% of those having underlying health conditions. Both the death rate and hospitalization rate are based on those testing positive, so likely much lower when considering those exposed.

I mean this sincerely, am I missing something here? I fully grasp the dangers to the over 50 crowd and those with underlying health problems, but what am I not understanding relative to the near 0 risk for under 50 and no health problems? Seriously, if I'm ignorant to something I'd like to know because I just don't understand.
I can understand your frustration and your questioning. In a state like Wyoming there already is a fair amount of social distancing inherent due to low population density.etc. so the problem just may naturally not look as daunting. In a city like here in Chicago, a much different story. In a tight place like NYC - fuggidaboudit! The only way we're ever going to really know is through testing. Lots and lots of testing. Covid testing, antibody testing, whatever. Compare us to South Korea, where they were on it right away, or Germany, where they dropped the ball for a little while, then really got after it. As this is a national health emergency, what is needed is a COHERENT national response. The Federal Government has failed HORRIBLY in it's responsibility for taking care of the American public. Making the states fend for themselves, even compete for resources is BULLS&%T. But, at least, then the buck will stop ......... elsewhere, Right?
This observation does not support your assertion. You have locations with different situations. There are some things the central government can and should do. Beyond that the more the local authorities down to the individual can do on their own, the better off we are. Whether you want to call it federalism or subsidiarity, it tends to work better than a overly centralized system especially for a nation as big and diverse as the United States. It isn't making states fend for themselves it is allowing those in positions of authority closer to the matter do what they are supposed to do. Imagine, the position of Governor of Illinois isn't just some position of prestige where you get to pay off union and well uh certain other organizational buddies. If Illinois had a competent state government (dang that took me a long time to type) they wouldn't be so unprepared.
Returned from my 4 year exodus in Greenieville
Post Reply