How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[Kris]

Poetic justice is so much better than social justice.

https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-gov-tom-wolf-tests-positive-for-covid-19/34920856

I encourage Gov Wolf to visit his friends Cuomo and Fauci as soon as possible.

What's poetic about Tom Wolf getting sick?    He's not a covid-19 denier...

There’s nothing poetic about it. T-Money$ just thinks “poetic” means “someone I hate getting it.”

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Poetic justice is so much better than social justice.

https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-gov-tom-wolf-tests-positive-for-covid-19/34920856

I encourage Gov Wolf to visit his friends Cuomo and Fauci as soon as possible.

What's poetic about Tom Wolf getting sick?    He's not a covid-19 denier...

+1.  He agrees COVID is real, and he takes precautions.  Nothing poetic about it.

Poetic would be the deniers and anti-maskers getting COVID.

The implication amongst people of that mindset is that a person who supports precautions and took precautions getting it is poetic justice because if the precautions worked, they wouldn't have gotten it. It doesn't make logical sense and is just mean (as would be being happy that anyone has it IMO).

It actually makes a little logical sense if you start with the false assumption that masks and the like will 100% protect you if you are the only one that wears them. It's a crappy strawman because no one supporting wearing masks thinks that. They understand that if everyone wore them properly it would reduce but not completely eliminate the chances of everyone involved catching it.

[ixtap]

My Mom heard a rumour that one of her cousin's passed away, so I went snooping. The second to last picture she posted was "clothed as the holy spirit intended," aka American style clothing with no mask. The last picture she has an oxygen mask. The immediate family has been careful not to mention the cause of death...

[Kris]

Poetic justice is so much better than social justice.

https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-gov-tom-wolf-tests-positive-for-covid-19/34920856

I encourage Gov Wolf to visit his friends Cuomo and Fauci as soon as possible.

What's poetic about Tom Wolf getting sick?    He's not a covid-19 denier...

+1.  He agrees COVID is real, and he takes precautions.  Nothing poetic about it.

Poetic would be the deniers and anti-maskers getting COVID.

The implication amongst people of that mindset is that a person who supports precautions and took precautions getting it is poetic justice because if the precautions worked, they wouldn't have gotten it. It doesn't make logical sense and is just mean (as would be being happy that anyone has it IMO).

It actually makes a little logical sense if you start with the false assumption that masks and the like will 100% protect you if you are the only one that wears them. It's a crappy strawman because no one supporting wearing masks thinks that. They understand that if everyone wore them properly it would reduce but not completely eliminate the chances of everyone involved catching it.

Except, as anyone who is paying attention literally at all knows, masks are to protect others from the wearer. So it’s an even shittier strawman than that.

[HPstache]

My Mom heard a rumour that one of her cousin's passed away, so I went snooping. The second to last picture she posted was "clothed as the holy spirit intended," aka American style clothing with no mask. The last picture she has an oxygen mask. The immediate family has been careful not to mention the cause of death...

That'll teach'em!  Am I right?  You do realize someone could be 100% vigilant with mask wearing and still catch COVID and die?  We are in a terrible pandemic.  This forum is so toxic sometimes...

[ixtap]

My Mom heard a rumour that one of her cousin's passed away, so I went snooping. The second to last picture she posted was "clothed as the holy spirit intended," aka American style clothing with no mask. The last picture she has an oxygen mask. The immediate family has been careful not to mention the cause of death...

That'll teach'em!  Am I right?  You do realize someone could be 100% vigilant with mask wearing and still catch COVID and die?  We are in a terrible pandemic.  This forum is so toxic sometimes...

I also realize that the real purpose of the mask is to keep from spreading it. Doesn't change the fact that it is really annoying to call on the holy spirit to justify your anti social ideas.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Poetic justice is so much better than social justice.

https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-gov-tom-wolf-tests-positive-for-covid-19/34920856

I encourage Gov Wolf to visit his friends Cuomo and Fauci as soon as possible.

What's poetic about Tom Wolf getting sick?    He's not a covid-19 denier...

+1.  He agrees COVID is real, and he takes precautions.  Nothing poetic about it.

Poetic would be the deniers and anti-maskers getting COVID.

The implication amongst people of that mindset is that a person who supports precautions and took precautions getting it is poetic justice because if the precautions worked, they wouldn't have gotten it. It doesn't make logical sense and is just mean (as would be being happy that anyone has it IMO).

It actually makes a little logical sense if you start with the false assumption that masks and the like will 100% protect you if you are the only one that wears them. It's a crappy strawman because no one supporting wearing masks thinks that. They understand that if everyone wore them properly it would reduce but not completely eliminate the chances of everyone involved catching it.

Except, as anyone who is paying attention literally at all knows, masks are to protect others from the wearer. So it’s an even shittier strawman than that.

Good point. I didn't emphasize aspect of wearing a mask being really for other people's benefit more than your own. But yea, I mean, it's a really mean thing to think when you've just got people who are just trying to do what's best for everyone. People's responses to the virus really make me sad.

[Villanelle]

I watched this TEDx talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0O2vi8DX4

At about 6:30 into it, she talks about a study about how we learn from good or bad news changes with age. Basically after about 40-50 the ability to learn from bad news decreases.

Maybe this is why some older people are not responding the way some others expect. Note: I wrote "some," not "all.

I myself have thought that if I was a few decades older and had the choice of
1. isolate at home, see almost no one, decline in health due to lack of exercise and maybe die in 5 years or
2. continue seeing people, maintain my current fitness level and maybe die in a few months.
It's highly likely I'd choose option 2. A few elderly people I know have expressed in the past, before the pandemic, that they were at peace with death coming soon. So their choice to continue living their lives makes a lot of sense to me.

Except it's not a binary choice between sitting in the dark on the sofa and Doing All the Things.  My parents (late 70s) still play tennis 2-4 times a week. They play singles now, instead of doubles.  The dog still gets walked three times a day (total of an hour plus).  They have happy hour with the neighbors, over their fence (so very socially distant).  They still work in their yard and talk on the phone with friends.  They still have weekly zoom happy hour with their children. 

They are still living their life.  Perhaps not at 100%, but it's closer to 100 than 0.  There's certainly joy and quality of life and exercise and socialization. 

Then there is the fact that while someone might be at peace with death coming soon *for themselves*, their choices bring death or an increased possibility to death.  That seems to be the piece most people miss.  They choices aren't just about themselves. 

[Abe]

Anyone willing to die of covid for whatever reason should visit their doctor and sign a healthcare power of attorney and living will (called a POST form in some states). They can specify that in the event of covid-19 infection, a Do Not Resuscitate order should be in effect, and a Do Not Intubate order also. That way they can decide if they are sure about their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the community’s resources to save others. Otherwise, it’s just bluster, hyperbole and posturing. Those who are jobless, homeless or running out of food excepted. That’s another level of suffering and separate from those who are merely inconvenienced, yet imagine themselves as heroes saving jobs with their carousing. If they are truly concerned for others’ welfare, they can donate their excess money to food banks instead.

[Paper Chaser]

It might be interesting to ask those people "in their 80s and 90s who have a zest for life" how they feel about restrictions in place. I'd wager that there would be a mix of responses pretty similar to other age groups, where some want to get out and take their chances, while others want to do everything they can to reduce the odds of contracting the virus. It wouldn't surprise me at all if an elderly person with a zest for life might be more inclined to take their chances (Around 80% survival rate in that demographic per the local stats that you shared) and continue to live their life how they see fit.

I've got quite a few elderly neighbors and family members. For many of them, they'd rather mask up and live their lives (situation 2 above) than be stuck and isolated for weeks or months at a time. It took an eye opening conversation with some of them near the beginning of the pandemic lockdowns for me to realize that thinking "we have to sacrifice to save the elderly" may not really be what these people want if it means extended isolation for them.

Remember that to ask them retrospectively you'll have to assume a magnitude higher chance of catching the virus, as lockdowns and masks and restrictions that we put in place so we didn't have to sacrifice a portion of the population's lives have slowed down transmission.

I think your thought experiment here may more likely prove how poorly humans can parse statistical information and risks than anything about actual will to live.

Maybe so. Risk assessment is so unique for every individual and situation. My point was not necessarily about "will to live" as much as it was about the perception of the quality of life while living. A person that's in their 80s may be more or less willing to sacrifice their perceived quality of life for what could be a large percentage of their remaining lifespan in order to avoid the virus. Some will, and others will not. It's not as if older demographics are any more unified in their outlook on this than any other demographic.

And it was also about giving the people in question the dignity of choice as well. Making choices on behalf of adults, that they might not want, and telling them "It's for your own good" seems well-meaning but misguided. These people can still make their own choices. They can still vote for the leaders of our country. The ones that I've spoken with all expressed a desire to not have critical choices about how they can/cannot spend the last parts of their lives made for them. Most of them were willing to sacrifice in some areas, but all of them had a point that was "too much". Maybe it was going to church, or being able to visit grandkids, etc. But they all expressed some concern about being cooped up in their homes or unable to socialize/contribute to society.

[Paper Chaser]

I watched this TEDx talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0O2vi8DX4

At about 6:30 into it, she talks about a study about how we learn from good or bad news changes with age. Basically after about 40-50 the ability to learn from bad news decreases.

Maybe this is why some older people are not responding the way some others expect. Note: I wrote "some," not "all.

I myself have thought that if I was a few decades older and had the choice of
1. isolate at home, see almost no one, decline in health due to lack of exercise and maybe die in 5 years or
2. continue seeing people, maintain my current fitness level and maybe die in a few months.
It's highly likely I'd choose option 2. A few elderly people I know have expressed in the past, before the pandemic, that they were at peace with death coming soon. So their choice to continue living their lives makes a lot of sense to me.

Except it's not a binary choice between sitting in the dark on the sofa and Doing All the Things.  My parents (late 70s) still play tennis 2-4 times a week. They play singles now, instead of doubles.  The dog still gets walked three times a day (total of an hour plus).  They have happy hour with the neighbors, over their fence (so very socially distant).  They still work in their yard and talk on the phone with friends.  They still have weekly zoom happy hour with their children. 

They are still living their life.  Perhaps not at 100%, but it's closer to 100 than 0.  There's certainly joy and quality of life and exercise and socialization. 

Then there is the fact that while someone might be at peace with death coming soon *for themselves*, their choices bring death or an increased possibility to death.  That seems to be the piece most people miss.  They choices aren't just about themselves.

There are large parts of this country where outdoor activity is difficult for several months per year. There are also parts of this country where internet access is spotty and/or detrimentally expensive. There's a lot of overlap in those two categories too, which can make adapting to current circumstances difficult for anybody, but especially for older folks.

[former player]

Anyone willing to die of covid for whatever reason should visit their doctor and sign a healthcare power of attorney and living will (called a POST form in some states). They can specify that in the event of covid-19 infection, a Do Not Resuscitate order should be in effect, and a Do Not Intubate order also. That way they can decide if they are sure about their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the community’s resources to save others. Otherwise, it’s just bluster, hyperbole and posturing. Those who are jobless, homeless or running out of food excepted. That’s another level of suffering and separate from those who are merely inconvenienced, yet imagine themselves as heroes saving jobs with their carousing. If they are truly concerned for others’ welfare, they can donate their excess money to food banks instead.

Can you still donate your organs if you die of Covid?  Bonus societal benefit if so.

[RetiredAt63]

Anyone willing to die of covid for whatever reason should visit their doctor and sign a healthcare power of attorney and living will (called a POST form in some states). They can specify that in the event of covid-19 infection, a Do Not Resuscitate order should be in effect, and a Do Not Intubate order also. That way they can decide if they are sure about their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the community’s resources to save others. Otherwise, it’s just bluster, hyperbole and posturing. Those who are jobless, homeless or running out of food excepted. That’s another level of suffering and separate from those who are merely inconvenienced, yet imagine themselves as heroes saving jobs with their carousing. If they are truly concerned for others’ welfare, they can donate their excess money to food banks instead.

Can you still donate your organs if you die of Covid?  Bonus societal benefit if so.

I seriously doubt it.  Quick google search turned up kidney donation info, donor needs to be otherwise healthy, no cancer, no infectious diseases.  And for Covid, think of all the potential micro-clots.

For those exposing themselves to infection needlessly, maybe they should change their wills to donate some to the local hospital that is going to be using resources for them?  They can always change it back later if they survive.

[Wings5]

Wild how this thread has gone from "How long can we wait?" to "You should donate your organs."

[OtherJen]

Unfortunately, Sweden is once again struggling to flatten the curve. Herd immunity to this virus is not going to happen without vaccination or high rates of morbidity and mortality.

Stockholm intensive care units reach 99 percent capacity (WaPo)

Intensive care units in Stockholm have reached 99 percent capacity, the country’s public broadcaster reported Wednesday, amid warnings that some patients may be refused treatment if hospitalizations continue to increase.

“We need help,” said Bjorn Eriksson, the region’s health and medical care director, according to Sveriges Radio.

---

Voices in support of Sweden’s coronavirus response have been more muted in recent months, as the continent’s second wave of the virus hit the country hard. The nation of around 10 million people recorded more than 7,000 new coronavirus infections on Wednesday, bringing the country’s total to more than 300,000. At least 7,296 people have died from the virus so far, with the capital and surrounding areas accounting for more than one-third.

Critics have demanded more decisive action by the government, but Swedish constitutional law makes it difficult for the prime minister to impose restrictions comparable to those implemented in France or Italy, for instance.

In an indication that a U-turn in Sweden’s approach may be imminent, the Swedish government said Wednesday that it will seek parliamentary approval for the closure of malls or gyms.

[NotJen]

Wild how this thread has gone from "How long can we wait?" to "You should donate your organs."

Literally no one said "You should donate your organs".

On that note, I keep wondering about how organ donation has fared in all of this (it's a complicated problem that certainly got even more complicated this year).  My large local hospital system stopped elective surgeries last week, which I believe includes kidney transplants.  I wonder how many "good" organs have gone to waste.

[GuitarStv]

Wild how this thread has gone from "How long can we wait?" to "You should donate your organs."

The US gave up on the idea of attempting to flatten the curve a long time ago.

[OtherJen]

Wild how this thread has gone from "How long can we wait?" to "You should donate your organs."

Literally no one said "You should donate your organs".

On that note, I keep wondering about how organ donation has fared in all of this (it's a complicated problem that certainly got even more complicated this year).  My large local hospital system stopped elective surgeries last week, which I believe includes kidney transplants.  I wonder how many "good" organs have gone to waste.

Given all of the clotting/vascular issues, I would imagine that most organs from a person who died of COVID would be useless. Certainly highly perfused tissues like the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys would not be usable.

[NotJen]

Wild how this thread has gone from "How long can we wait?" to "You should donate your organs."

Literally no one said "You should donate your organs".

On that note, I keep wondering about how organ donation has fared in all of this (it's a complicated problem that certainly got even more complicated this year).  My large local hospital system stopped elective surgeries last week, which I believe includes kidney transplants.  I wonder how many "good" organs have gone to waste.

Given all of the clotting/vascular issues, I would imagine that most organs from a person who died of COVID would be useless. Certainly highly perfused tissues like the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys would not be usable.

I meant organs from non-COVID patients that can't be distributed because hospitals are full.  I'm wondering if that's happening.

[ixtap]

Wild how this thread has gone from "How long can we wait?" to "You should donate your organs."

Literally no one said "You should donate your organs".

On that note, I keep wondering about how organ donation has fared in all of this (it's a complicated problem that certainly got even more complicated this year).  My large local hospital system stopped elective surgeries last week, which I believe includes kidney transplants.  I wonder how many "good" organs have gone to waste.

Given all of the clotting/vascular issues, I would imagine that most organs from a person who died of COVID would be useless. Certainly highly perfused tissues like the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys would not be usable.

I meant organs from non-COVID patients that can't be distributed because hospitals are full.  I'm wondering if that's happening.

Organ donors are either scheduled with the recipient or die in some kind of accident/ violent act. Last I heard, those kinds of accidents had declined during the pandemic. This is probably as big an issue as the distribution system.

[Villanelle]

I watched this TEDx talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0O2vi8DX4

At about 6:30 into it, she talks about a study about how we learn from good or bad news changes with age. Basically after about 40-50 the ability to learn from bad news decreases.

Maybe this is why some older people are not responding the way some others expect. Note: I wrote "some," not "all.

I myself have thought that if I was a few decades older and had the choice of
1. isolate at home, see almost no one, decline in health due to lack of exercise and maybe die in 5 years or
2. continue seeing people, maintain my current fitness level and maybe die in a few months.
It's highly likely I'd choose option 2. A few elderly people I know have expressed in the past, before the pandemic, that they were at peace with death coming soon. So their choice to continue living their lives makes a lot of sense to me.

Except it's not a binary choice between sitting in the dark on the sofa and Doing All the Things.  My parents (late 70s) still play tennis 2-4 times a week. They play singles now, instead of doubles.  The dog still gets walked three times a day (total of an hour plus).  They have happy hour with the neighbors, over their fence (so very socially distant).  They still work in their yard and talk on the phone with friends.  They still have weekly zoom happy hour with their children. 

They are still living their life.  Perhaps not at 100%, but it's closer to 100 than 0.  There's certainly joy and quality of life and exercise and socialization. 

Then there is the fact that while someone might be at peace with death coming soon *for themselves*, their choices bring death or an increased possibility to death.  That seems to be the piece most people miss.  They choices aren't just about themselves.

There are large parts of this country where outdoor activity is difficult for several months per year. There are also parts of this country where internet access is spotty and/or detrimentally expensive. There's a lot of overlap in those two categories too, which can make adapting to current circumstances difficult for anybody, but especially for older folks.

Okay, but it's still nowhere near the binary decision that was presented.  Can't go outside?  Like, truly, truly can't?  (Because one can certainly go for a 20-30 minute walk in sub-freezing temps with snow on the ground, so how many people/places are we really talking?  Very few.)  Have a dance party in your living room.  Find a yoga video.  Lift soup cans and water containers.  Go up and down your stairs a dozen times. 

No internet?  Call a friend or neighbor or family member to chat.  Read an engrossing book that makes you feel things.  Stand at your fence, with a neighbor 10 feet away on the other side, and chat for 10-15 minutes (even in the cold!). 

So again, there are ways to not sit at home alone in the dark with your body and mind wasting away, that don't involve living life as it was pre-Covid.  To even imply otherwise is asinine. 

[Villanelle]

Wild how this thread has gone from "How long can we wait?" to "You should donate your organs."

Literally no one said "You should donate your organs".

On that note, I keep wondering about how organ donation has fared in all of this (it's a complicated problem that certainly got even more complicated this year).  My large local hospital system stopped elective surgeries last week, which I believe includes kidney transplants.  I wonder how many "good" organs have gone to waste.

Given all of the clotting/vascular issues, I would imagine that most organs from a person who died of COVID would be useless. Certainly highly perfused tissues like the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys would not be usable.

You'd be essentially injecting Covid-infected blood into a person who takes immuno-suppressants as anti-rejection protocol.  I can't believe that's not a hard-no.  I have a friend who received a kidney and pancreas donation in January.  Her doctor has basically said that if she gets Covid, she is done.  Her immune system is suppressed intentionally, as are the immune systems of anyone who donated organs, so the infection would ravage her body quickly and lethally.

[MoseyingAlong]

I watched this TEDx talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0O2vi8DX4

At about 6:30 into it, she talks about a study about how we learn from good or bad news changes with age. Basically after about 40-50 the ability to learn from bad news decreases.

Maybe this is why some older people are not responding the way some others expect. Note: I wrote "some," not "all.

I myself have thought that if I was a few decades older and had the choice of
1. isolate at home, see almost no one, decline in health due to lack of exercise and maybe die in 5 years or
2. continue seeing people, maintain my current fitness level and maybe die in a few months.
It's highly likely I'd choose option 2. A few elderly people I know have expressed in the past, before the pandemic, that they were at peace with death coming soon. So their choice to continue living their lives makes a lot of sense to me.

Except it's not a binary choice between sitting in the dark on the sofa and Doing All the Things.  My parents (late 70s) still play tennis 2-4 times a week. They play singles now, instead of doubles.  The dog still gets walked three times a day (total of an hour plus).  They have happy hour with the neighbors, over their fence (so very socially distant).  They still work in their yard and talk on the phone with friends.  They still have weekly zoom happy hour with their children. 

They are still living their life.  Perhaps not at 100%, but it's closer to 100 than 0.  There's certainly joy and quality of life and exercise and socialization. 

Then there is the fact that while someone might be at peace with death coming soon *for themselves*, their choices bring death or an increased possibility to death.  That seems to be the piece most people miss.  They choices aren't just about themselves.

There are large parts of this country where outdoor activity is difficult for several months per year. There are also parts of this country where internet access is spotty and/or detrimentally expensive. There's a lot of overlap in those two categories too, which can make adapting to current circumstances difficult for anybody, but especially for older folks.

Okay, but it's still nowhere near the binary decision that was presented.  Can't go outside?  Like, truly, truly can't?  (Because one can certainly go for a 20-30 minute walk in sub-freezing temps with snow on the ground, so how many people/places are we really talking?  Very few.)  Have a dance party in your living room.  Find a yoga video.  Lift soup cans and water containers.  Go up and down your stairs a dozen times. 

No internet?  Call a friend or neighbor or family member to chat.  Read an engrossing book that makes you feel things.  Stand at your fence, with a neighbor 10 feet away on the other side, and chat for 10-15 minutes (even in the cold!). 

So again, there are ways to not sit at home alone in the dark with your body and mind wasting away, that don't involve living life as it was pre-Covid.  To even imply otherwise is asinine.

Wow, communication is hard.

I was simply trying to introduce some other options and possible thought processes besides the "everyone should do everything possible to prevent COVID, who cares about any other consequences" that it seems some people are falling into. I wasn't advocating not wearing masks or anything else. And yes, I am fully aware of the seriousness of the pandemic as a healthcare worker who's been working on COVID ICUs.

I also have some people in my life who are so scared of car accidents that they don't drive and very rarely get in a car at all. That really limits their life and to me, the slight increase in safety is not worth the limitations. But it's their life, their decision. And they are not imposing that decision on everyone else.

Anyway, it's so interesting to see different perspectives and behavior from people in all walks and stages of life. If anyone is interested in a thought-provoking book, I highly recommend Being Mortal by Atul Gawande. He talks about the tension between making decisions for yourself where you prioritize control versus making decisions for loved ones where you prioritize safety.

Hope we all stay as healthy as possible and the vaccines work as hoped for.

[Paper Chaser]

I watched this TEDx talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0O2vi8DX4

At about 6:30 into it, she talks about a study about how we learn from good or bad news changes with age. Basically after about 40-50 the ability to learn from bad news decreases.

Maybe this is why some older people are not responding the way some others expect. Note: I wrote "some," not "all.

I myself have thought that if I was a few decades older and had the choice of
1. isolate at home, see almost no one, decline in health due to lack of exercise and maybe die in 5 years or
2. continue seeing people, maintain my current fitness level and maybe die in a few months.
It's highly likely I'd choose option 2. A few elderly people I know have expressed in the past, before the pandemic, that they were at peace with death coming soon. So their choice to continue living their lives makes a lot of sense to me.

Except it's not a binary choice between sitting in the dark on the sofa and Doing All the Things.  My parents (late 70s) still play tennis 2-4 times a week. They play singles now, instead of doubles.  The dog still gets walked three times a day (total of an hour plus).  They have happy hour with the neighbors, over their fence (so very socially distant).  They still work in their yard and talk on the phone with friends.  They still have weekly zoom happy hour with their children. 

They are still living their life.  Perhaps not at 100%, but it's closer to 100 than 0.  There's certainly joy and quality of life and exercise and socialization. 

Then there is the fact that while someone might be at peace with death coming soon *for themselves*, their choices bring death or an increased possibility to death.  That seems to be the piece most people miss.  They choices aren't just about themselves.

There are large parts of this country where outdoor activity is difficult for several months per year. There are also parts of this country where internet access is spotty and/or detrimentally expensive. There's a lot of overlap in those two categories too, which can make adapting to current circumstances difficult for anybody, but especially for older folks.

Okay, but it's still nowhere near the binary decision that was presented.  Can't go outside?  Like, truly, truly can't?  (Because one can certainly go for a 20-30 minute walk in sub-freezing temps with snow on the ground, so how many people/places are we really talking?  Very few.)  Have a dance party in your living room.  Find a yoga video.  Lift soup cans and water containers.  Go up and down your stairs a dozen times. 

No internet?  Call a friend or neighbor or family member to chat.  Read an engrossing book that makes you feel things.  Stand at your fence, with a neighbor 10 feet away on the other side, and chat for 10-15 minutes (even in the cold!). 

So again, there are ways to not sit at home alone in the dark with your body and mind wasting away, that don't involve living life as it was pre-Covid.  To even imply otherwise is asinine.

I think we agree on some things. It's a lot easier to modify existing behaviors than to eliminate them. And you're absolutely correct that it's not a binary decision. That goes for just about everything in this pandemic, including how we view other's actions. I like the safe sex vs abstinence metaphor in this article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/tis-the-season-for-shame-and-judgment/617335/

"Very few people want to get infected or get others sick. When people take risks, it often reflects an unmet need: for a paycheck, for social connection, for accurate information about how to protect themselves. Acknowledging and meeting people’s needs will reduce risk behavior; finger-wagging won’t."

"Rather than imposing rules that neglect the realities of human behavior and then reprimanding people for breaking them, the message could be a more pragmatic and compassionate one: We understand that this is hard and that social connection is important for health, so we will support you in gathering more safely."

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

COVID is new and scary. It's potentially lethal. But based on demographic data for every location that I've seen, it's survived by the statistical majority of those who contract it in every individual age group, and it's not really close. 70% survival rate or better in the 80+ age group for every location that I've bothered to calculate. A substantial percentage of deaths are in Long Term Care facilities too, which may indicate that an active, healthy person has even better odds than that of surviving the virus. So, do they take a chance that they might contract the virus at the gym, or take a chance with the snow/ice on a narrow road?

[GuitarStv]

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

Maybe we should stop pretending that simply because choosing a ridiculous lifestyle is possible, it's somehow OK.

If your 80 year old neighbour lives in an area with no sidewalks, heavy snow, and that requires a car drive to have any social interaction . . . there's a clear action they can do to improve their ability to exercise, socialize, and reduce environmental damage they cause.  Move.

[Paper Chaser]

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

Maybe we should stop pretending that simply because choosing a ridiculous lifestyle is possible, it's somehow OK.

If your 80 year old neighbour lives in an area with no sidewalks, heavy snow, and that requires a car drive to have any social interaction . . . there's a clear action they can do to improve their ability to exercise, socialize, and reduce environmental damage they cause.  Move.

By that logic, why does anybody live anywhere that's not a city? Perhaps people value different things?

[former player]

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

Maybe we should stop pretending that simply because choosing a ridiculous lifestyle is possible, it's somehow OK.

If your 80 year old neighbour lives in an area with no sidewalks, heavy snow, and that requires a car drive to have any social interaction . . . there's a clear action they can do to improve their ability to exercise, socialize, and reduce environmental damage they cause.  Move.

By that logic, why does anybody live anywhere that's not a city? Perhaps people value different things?

In your previous post you agreed with Villanelle that the response to Covid was not a binary decision.  I'd just like to point out that it is also not a binary decision between living down a country road with no sidewalks and bad winter weather and moving to the city.

[Paper Chaser]

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

Maybe we should stop pretending that simply because choosing a ridiculous lifestyle is possible, it's somehow OK.

If your 80 year old neighbour lives in an area with no sidewalks, heavy snow, and that requires a car drive to have any social interaction . . . there's a clear action they can do to improve their ability to exercise, socialize, and reduce environmental damage they cause.  Move.

By that logic, why does anybody live anywhere that's not a city? Perhaps people value different things?

In your previous post you agreed with Villanelle that the response to Covid was not a binary decision.  I'd just like to point out that it is also not a binary decision between living down a country road with no sidewalks and bad winter weather and moving to the city.

Perhaps not, but that sure seems like it was GuitarStv's implication, that anybody that dares live in a rural area is ridiculous for that choice.

[GuitarStv]

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

Maybe we should stop pretending that simply because choosing a ridiculous lifestyle is possible, it's somehow OK.

If your 80 year old neighbour lives in an area with no sidewalks, heavy snow, and that requires a car drive to have any social interaction . . . there's a clear action they can do to improve their ability to exercise, socialize, and reduce environmental damage they cause.  Move.

By that logic, why does anybody live anywhere that's not a city? Perhaps people value different things?

In your previous post you agreed with Villanelle that the response to Covid was not a binary decision.  I'd just like to point out that it is also not a binary decision between living down a country road with no sidewalks and bad winter weather and moving to the city.

Perhaps not, but that sure seems like it was GuitarStv's implication, that anybody that dares live in a rural area is ridiculous for that choice.

Some rural areas (like the one described in the post I responded to) are poor choices to live for elderly people so feeble they're not able to walk 20 minutes in the winter.  Choosing to live there, like that is certainly ridiculous.

Of course this isn't true of all rural areas.

[fuzzy math]

Anyone willing to die of covid for whatever reason should visit their doctor and sign a healthcare power of attorney and living will (called a POST form in some states). They can specify that in the event of covid-19 infection, a Do Not Resuscitate order should be in effect, and a Do Not Intubate order also. That way they can decide if they are sure about their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the community’s resources to save others. Otherwise, it’s just bluster, hyperbole and posturing. Those who are jobless, homeless or running out of food excepted. That’s another level of suffering and separate from those who are merely inconvenienced, yet imagine themselves as heroes saving jobs with their carousing. If they are truly concerned for others’ welfare, they can donate their excess money to food banks instead.

Do you ask drug or alcohol addicts, criminals, the uninsured or the mentally ill to sign DNRs when you treat them? Perhaps you should just tell them the next time to push harder to make sure that their OD, accident, crime or acute mental state kills them so you don't have to be bothered treating them? If you cannot cite examples, then its just bluster, hyperbole and posturing on your part. Do you ask whether someone's political or religious affiliation or their recent dining preferences match with yours before you decide whether to allocate life saving care for them? Do your ethics only come in to play when you perceive that you can receive an AMEN from someone on a message board?

Your statement above, while it might seem particularly witty or cutting to the lay person, shows a serious lack of understanding on your part of the role of health care providers in providing quality care without prejudice. I'd urge you to think back to some of your early ethics classes.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/obligation-provide-services-physician-public-defender-comparison/2006-05

"If the physician harbors resentment against the patient because of lifestyle or failure to comply with treatment, the patient-physician alliance is compromised and, thus, care is ultimately compromised."

[mm1970]

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

Maybe we should stop pretending that simply because choosing a ridiculous lifestyle is possible, it's somehow OK.

If your 80 year old neighbour lives in an area with no sidewalks, heavy snow, and that requires a car drive to have any social interaction . . . there's a clear action they can do to improve their ability to exercise, socialize, and reduce environmental damage they cause.  Move.

By that logic, why does anybody live anywhere that's not a city? Perhaps people value different things?

In your previous post you agreed with Villanelle that the response to Covid was not a binary decision.  I'd just like to point out that it is also not a binary decision between living down a country road with no sidewalks and bad winter weather and moving to the city.

Perhaps not, but that sure seems like it was GuitarStv's implication, that anybody that dares live in a rural area is ridiculous for that choice.

Some rural areas (like the one described in the post I responded to) are poor choices to live for elderly people so feeble they're not able to walk 20 minutes in the winter.  Choosing to live there, like that is certainly ridiculous.

Of course this isn't true of all rural areas.

This brings up the other complications of "aging in place".  Where I live now, it's easy.  Lots of old people here, great weather, services for food delivery and vans to take you shopping, etc.

Where I grew up, not so much.  Very rural.  Now, thanks to some volunteers they have paved many miles of old railroads into public trails for walking - one of which literally goes through my stepfather's back yard.  However, it gets cold and icy, and he can't really walk right now (cancer, injury).  He's lived within a few hundred yards of this place his whole life except for when he was in the Army (grew up across the street).

However, thousands of people have managed it - but they do manage it with help from family.

[Anette]

@MoseyingAlong  Thank you for the book recommendation, I have added it to my wishlist. Sounds really interesting and I am a medical person ( nurse) as well.

[Paper Chaser]

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

Maybe we should stop pretending that simply because choosing a ridiculous lifestyle is possible, it's somehow OK.

If your 80 year old neighbour lives in an area with no sidewalks, heavy snow, and that requires a car drive to have any social interaction . . . there's a clear action they can do to improve their ability to exercise, socialize, and reduce environmental damage they cause.  Move.

By that logic, why does anybody live anywhere that's not a city? Perhaps people value different things?

In your previous post you agreed with Villanelle that the response to Covid was not a binary decision.  I'd just like to point out that it is also not a binary decision between living down a country road with no sidewalks and bad winter weather and moving to the city.

Perhaps not, but that sure seems like it was GuitarStv's implication, that anybody that dares live in a rural area is ridiculous for that choice.

Some rural areas (like the one described in the post I responded to) are poor choices to live for elderly people so feeble they're not able to walk 20 minutes in the winter.  Choosing to live there, like that is certainly ridiculous.

Of course this isn't true of all rural areas.

They're not feeble. They're small business owners that live pretty efficiently, use little, give back to the local community, and try to stay active and healthy. They do just fine maintaining their 3 acres and they walk almost everyday that the weather is reasonable. They were Mustachian before it was cool.

It's not that they're unable to do it, but I'm a pretty healthy 34 year old and I can slip and fall on some ice and hurt myself too. But I'm more likely to recover than an 80 year old, no matter how healthy they might be. If a passing vehicle slips on the ice/snow because they didn't see a pedestrian in time and can't correct, it doesn't care how old or able bodied you are either. They'd have many of the same issues living in a suburban subdivision or vibrant downtown neighborhood if the sidewalks weren't cleared. That's part of the larger point that there are risks in just about everything, and a virus may not be the most concerning for some people in some situations.

[T-Money$]

https://fee.org/articles/3-studies-that-show-lockdowns-are-ineffective-at-slowing-covid-19/

[Abe]

Wild how this thread has gone from "How long can we wait?" to "You should donate your organs."

Literally no one said "You should donate your organs".

On that note, I keep wondering about how organ donation has fared in all of this (it's a complicated problem that certainly got even more complicated this year).  My large local hospital system stopped elective surgeries last week, which I believe includes kidney transplants.  I wonder how many "good" organs have gone to waste.

Given all of the clotting/vascular issues, I would imagine that most organs from a person who died of COVID would be useless. Certainly highly perfused tissues like the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys would not be usable.

I meant organs from non-COVID patients that can't be distributed because hospitals are full.  I'm wondering if that's happening.

Organ donors are either scheduled with the recipient or die in some kind of accident/ violent act. Last I heard, those kinds of accidents had declined during the pandemic. This is probably as big an issue as the distribution system.

Yes, covid patients are not donation candidates. Most transplants have gone down for the reasons noted above (mostly less traffic fatalities). Hospitals at or near capacity are avoiding non-urgent transplants. (Almost all adult cases). Kidney transplant patients don’t require ICU afterwards but the rest do.

[T-Money$]

CT mask mandate chart.

[middo]

CT mask mandate chart.

If you are suggesting a cause and effect relationship, you should think about how increasing covid numbers causes authorities to tighten restrictions.

There are too many confounding variables here.  Masks are a useful tool to restrict and slow the spread, but do not stop it.

[GuitarStv]

Is it safer for my 80 year old neighbor to go for a 20-30 min walk, alone down a country road with no sidewalks in ice/snow or to drive a couple of miles to the gym for exercise and potentially a little social interaction? It would honestly be fascinating to try and determine which of those actions is more likely to result in a worse outcome for them. And considering human nature, which are they more likely to actually do (vs just sitting at home wasting away), the uncomfortable and risky walk in isolation, or the comfortable one with different risks that could also get them some socialization? There are ways to get around a lot of things, but the more difficult/uncomfortable that it is to do, the less likely it is to occur.

Maybe we should stop pretending that simply because choosing a ridiculous lifestyle is possible, it's somehow OK.

If your 80 year old neighbour lives in an area with no sidewalks, heavy snow, and that requires a car drive to have any social interaction . . . there's a clear action they can do to improve their ability to exercise, socialize, and reduce environmental damage they cause.  Move.

Would you have them move to a nursing home so they could of spent the last 8 months in solitary confinement? I think I'd choose slipping on the ice over that myself!

Two of my great grandmothers lived in their "rural" homes until their late 80's and loved it. Not sure why that's a ridiculous lifestyle?

Why stop the straw man there?

Maybe I want them taken to an abattoir so they can be executed and their corpses processed as nutritious feed for their grandchildren.  It's important to give back to the younger generations after all.  :P

[Goldielocks]

https://fee.org/articles/3-studies-that-show-lockdowns-are-ineffective-at-slowing-covid-19/

Quite a few of the lockdown deaths would be Covid related but not coded as such (due to less testing, and being called "stroke" "heart attack" "car accident", etc).

I know of a tragic case in my region, where a 20 year old had a small stroke while driving.  A very healthy 20 yr old.  She drove off the icy road and crashed.  She had all the Covid symptoms the week leading up to this, but was never tested for Covid.   It was listed as a car accident because it wasn't the stroke or illness that caused the actual death.

[alsoknownasDean]

Quite a few of the lockdown deaths would be Covid related but not coded as such (due to less testing, and being called "stroke" "heart attack" "car accident", etc).

I know of a tragic case in my region, where a 20 year old had a small stroke while driving.  A very healthy 20 yr old.  She drove off the icy road and crashed.  She had all the Covid symptoms the week leading up to this, but was never tested for Covid.   It was listed as a car accident because it wasn't the stroke or illness that caused the actual death.

Yeah the reporting here explicitly states deaths of people with Covid rather than deaths due to Covid. Although IIRC there was a case of someone who died of a drug overdose who was found to have had Covid, and then since reclassified?

Victoria has had it's first Covid cases in six weeks (all in hotel quarantine), about a week after restarting hotel quarantine.

Masks are now only required in large retail stores (supermarkets, big box stores, etc) and on public transport/taxis/rideshare, but it's interesting how many people are wearing masks out in public even in situations where they're no longer mandatory. Especially older people.

State borders have mostly reopened (with some exceptions because of the outbreak in South Australia last month). Life feels like it's starting to return to normal, all shops are open (at least in the suburbs, the CBD is probably still a ghost town) and local sport is now on again (cricket has been on for a month). I'm still working from home but will start to return to the office in the new year.

Probably helps that it's now summer. 29C and sunny today, I'm not staying at home.

https://fee.org/articles/3-studies-that-show-lockdowns-are-ineffective-at-slowing-covid-19/

It worked here. Four months without being able to see family was shit, but we're reaping the rewards now. Everything is open again and life is increasingly returning to normal.

[mm1970]

Our lock downs worked for awhile but things are going to crap rapidly. My county as well as most of Calif is seeing a big surge now and its getting worse everyday. ICU capacity maxed out in most places here and no where to take people. Apparently ambulances waiting with people in them for hours while waiting for an ICU or hospital bed. Lots of talk of imminent collapse of medical care units with lots of staff sick/shortage and PPE shortages.  The word "catastrophic" is being used a lot. Getting scary and hoping our new lockdown slows things down again but doubtful. Of course many people aren't complying, including my own household who went and played a sport with a bunch of other people yesterday and then came home to me (without telling me) and no way to enforce things.

It's a hot mess.  We aren't quite as bad off as they are down south (Los Angeles has had 2 days of over 12k!), but people are complaining about the lockdown - they want their bars and restaurants!  And why are we grouped with LA! (Um, because they drive up here?  And where do you think they are going to be sending their extra ICU patients?)

We had 59 cases in our county of 446k today, and my rural hometown had 46 cases in a county of 36k!!  (Oh, but it's a hoax, and we won't wear masks, and people need to work and buy presents for their kids!)  Um...how about we pass a stimulus, and they can pay bills AND not kill grandma?

[kenmoremmm]

predictions on the final death toll in the US (end of 2021 maybe)? i'm going to say 900k. that would be 1/367 people. with that ratio, i would hope that people would finally believe that it's not a hoax. i'm not holding my breath.

[mathlete]

predictions on the final death toll in the US (end of 2021 maybe)? i'm going to say 900k. that would be 1/367 people. with that ratio, i would hope that people would finally believe that it's not a hoax. i'm not holding my breath.

I have high hopes for the coming vaccines. I’m gonna guess around 500K for the final toll.

The extremely faint silver lining for this going so poorly is that we need fewer doses to get to herd immunity. As long as we distribute the doses efficiently, we should be able to stem the tide.

The worst case scenario is that the transition gets fucked up or some other incompetence rears it’s head. Doses go to where they’re not needed while vulnerable locations suffer. Storage becomes an issue and doses are ruined. We don’t communicate correctly who should be prioritized. Hundreds of thousands more die. Fingers crossed.

[marty998]

Our lock downs worked for awhile but things are going to crap rapidly. My county as well as most of Calif is seeing a big surge now and its getting worse everyday. ICU capacity maxed out in most places here and no where to take people. Apparently ambulances waiting with people in them for hours while waiting for an ICU or hospital bed. Lots of talk of imminent collapse of medical care units with lots of staff sick/shortage and PPE shortages.  The word "catastrophic" is being used a lot. Getting scary and hoping our new lockdown slows things down again but doubtful. Of course many people aren't complying, including my own household who went and played a sport with a bunch of other people yesterday and then came home to me (without telling me) and no way to enforce things.

Catastrophic was the word we used to describe the fires that burned all over Australia last summer. It's not a word you want to be hearing.

Be safe, wish you well.

[former player]

I thought I'd just quote this from someone on an Instagram feed:

"I spend all day in full PPE listening to my patients' Christmas overseas travel arrangements".

Says it all, really.

[OtherJen]

Quite a few of the lockdown deaths would be Covid related but not coded as such (due to less testing, and being called "stroke" "heart attack" "car accident", etc).

I know of a tragic case in my region, where a 20 year old had a small stroke while driving.  A very healthy 20 yr old.  She drove off the icy road and crashed.  She had all the Covid symptoms the week leading up to this, but was never tested for Covid.   It was listed as a car accident because it wasn't the stroke or illness that caused the actual death.

Yeah the reporting here explicitly states deaths of people with Covid rather than deaths due to Covid. Although IIRC there was a case of someone who died of a drug overdose who was found to have had Covid, and then since reclassified?

Victoria has had it's first Covid cases in six weeks (all in hotel quarantine), about a week after restarting hotel quarantine.

Masks are now only required in large retail stores (supermarkets, big box stores, etc) and on public transport/taxis/rideshare, but it's interesting how many people are wearing masks out in public even in situations where they're no longer mandatory. Especially older people.

State borders have mostly reopened (with some exceptions because of the outbreak in South Australia last month). Life feels like it's starting to return to normal, all shops are open (at least in the suburbs, the CBD is probably still a ghost town) and local sport is now on again (cricket has been on for a month). I'm still working from home but will start to return to the office in the new year.

Probably helps that it's now summer. 29C and sunny today, I'm not staying at home.

https://fee.org/articles/3-studies-that-show-lockdowns-are-ineffective-at-slowing-covid-19/

It worked here. Four months without being able to see family was shit, but we're reaping the rewards now. Everything is open again and life is increasingly returning to normal.

Our spring lockdowns did a good job of flattening the curve in our state, and we had low case numbers all summer. The combo of university students returning, colder weather (more people indoors), and the GOP legislators and justices neutering the governor’s ability to issue executive orders/states of emergency in early October led to a big, rapid rebound (as in maxed-out ICUs countywide) in the parts of the state where people tend not to wear masks for political reasons. So now we’re under a partial shutdown ordered by the state health department (as of a few weeks ago) and lo, the hospital admission rate has leveled off.

[T-Money$]

Updated cumulative COVID deaths by age group in Minnesota.

[T-Money$]

Recent COVID deaths in Germany compared to Denmark and Finland

[Michael in ABQ]

Updated cumulative COVID deaths by age group in Minnesota.

So not to be callous, but how many of those deaths from COVID in the 80+ age range would have normally occurred from influenza or even a common cold that lead to pneumonia? Especially for those living in nursing homes, where by definition you are usually not in great health.

I guess there's no way of knowing right now if this simply accelerated the end for the most vulnerable and there will be a dip in normal deaths in that age range for the next few years.

I'm sure there will be many studies in the coming years looking at the combination of age and comorbidities among those who died. With the data that's normally released by the government/media (exact age or decade range) there's no way to distinguish between the healthy 75-year old who died and the one who was a lifelong-smoker that's obese and has diabetes.

My grandma almost made it to 100 but recently died from natural causes/old age.

[JGS1980]

Updated cumulative COVID deaths by age group in Minnesota.

So not to be callous, but how many of those deaths from COVID in the 80+ age range would have normally occurred from influenza or even a common cold that lead to pneumonia? Especially for those living in nursing homes, where by definition you are usually not in great health.

I guess there's no way of knowing right now if this simply accelerated the end for the most vulnerable and there will be a dip in normal deaths in that age range for the next few years.

I'm sure there will be many studies in the coming years looking at the combination of age and comorbidities among those who died. With the data that's normally released by the government/media (exact age or decade range) there's no way to distinguish between the healthy 75-year old who died and the one who was a lifelong-smoker that's obese and has diabetes.

My grandma almost made it to 100 but recently died from natural causes/old age.

Michael, I can't believe our society is still having this argument. Covid is BAD. It is much WORSE than the Flu or run of the mill Pneumonia. If you don't believe this at this stage, than you are either an idiot or you are arguing in bad faith. I highlighted Flu and Pneumonia for you. Running tally of Covid deaths is now over 295,000 deaths in the US and increasing by 3K per day right now.  Yes, we will all die from something, but hopefully we will not die sooner than we must due to the current pandemic. This does not even count "excess deaths" that are due to Covid19 but not formally diagnosed. CDC estimates for excess deaths are now 75K and also growing.

Straight from the CDC, 2018 data:

Deaths and Mortality
Data are for the U.S.

Death rate: 867.8 deaths per 100,000 population
Source: National Vital Statistics System – Mortality Data (2018) via CDC WONDER

Number of deaths: 2,839,205
Life expectancy: 78.7 years

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 655,381
Cancer: 599,274
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 167,127
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 159,486
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 147,810
Alzheimer’s disease: 122,019
Diabetes: 84,946
Influenza and Pneumonia: 59,120
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 51,386
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 48,344

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm