2020 Apr 18, 11:08am
1,079 views 39 comments
What do the numbers look like with the assisted living and nursing home fatalities removed?
willywonka saysWhat do the numbers look like with the assisted living and nursing home fatalities removed?Like nothing, but no one wants to admit that. Death is bad, but if you wanna take the positive out of this, the average monthly SS check is ~$1,500 and can go up to $3k. 100k dead would be $150M a month save in SS minimum. That's not including medical which is much higher than the SS cost. Every nursing home death is likely saving $3-4k/mo per person dead. And remember, these are people that weren't producing anything. I know my position is harsh on this and those with sensitive feels will dislike it. But we need to open up, and if we burn off $3-4k/mo in obligations per death, you can't really argue that's a bad thing.
We're all dead. Not sure how I'm even typing. Weird.
Note that Sweden is not on the graph....
Sweden's curve remains exponentially up without sign of peaking.
Seems like what was needed was to leave the economy open, but protect the elderly.
everyone wants the economy to re-open the number is likely to be higher unless governments implement very strict isolation of vulnerable people - for example in the UK those over 70 or with certain high risk conditions have to lock in and get food & medicine delivered.
Why did we not do that from the beginning? Instead we have locked down perfectly healthy people with very little risk of death from this virus. The purpose was to flatten the curve; we smashed it.
Elderly care workers need hazmat suits if the outdoors is teeming with virus.
The elderly are getting the bug even with the full isolation we have.
TEOTWAWKI saysHow?People who care for them or live with them bringing it probably.
ThreeBays saysThe elderly are more likely to be sick in the first place and by actuarial averages more likely to die than young people. It's always been that way.
Old people are stupidly stubborn as hell
1) It was done so as not to overwhelm hospitals, since nobody knew where the curve will actually peak. With less isolation we would have peaked higher. Recall it's not only the base fatality rate that's the issue, but also the # of people that need hospitalization or they'll die as well.2) Maximal suppression was used to reduce the number of cases so that testing & contact-tracing can be viable.Testing & contact-tracing is likely the game changer here. The R spread is still pretty high (0.9) with the lockdown in NY. Reopening the economy will quickly push it over 1.0 and restart the epidemic. If contact tracing can identify even 25% of cases, that's enoiugh to let us get to R 1.3 and still have a dropping curve.
It's normal to see a rise in states that have not been affected much prior, doesn't necessarily mean the lockdown or lack thereof is responsible for it.
Was I right?
mell saysIt's normal to see a rise in states that have not been affected much prior, doesn't necessarily mean the lockdown or lack thereof is responsible for it.The states that are coming down are due to a combination of the shutdowns plus building a % of immunity. Most states haven't built a significant % of immunity so that's why they're still going up. Loosening shutdowns will make infections rise, but it'll be about 2 weeks before this is visible in cases and almost 3 weeks until a change in fatalities.
We are all fucked because we live in a free country.Communist regimes are the lucky ones with covid 19, where every deterrence is mandatory.
Communist regimes are the lucky ones with covid 19, where every deterrence is mandatory.
mell saysCommunist regimes are the lucky ones with covid 19, where every deterrence is mandatory.I'm starting to believe that deaths in China really are that low.Because they use HCQ early in the course of the disease.