How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[JGS1980]

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, or near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

Thinking about this a lot recently. I am against a Chinese style authoritarian lockdown because I'm against a Chinese style authoritarian government. But seeing as how something like 40% of my countrymen are unironically on board with overturning the results of a legitimate national election, I feel less strongly about it.

COVID skepticism and slow playing was never about high minded American ideals about liberty. It was always about the freedom from inconvenience. Nobody gives a shit about that other boring crap.

Good point Mathlete

[mathlete]

Fellow Americans; what do you think is at the heart of our refusal to take this seriously? I have a couple of theories.

1.) Bad leadership. President Trump was abysmal of course. But it's not just him. Something I think about a lot is how state wide officials in Texas targeted and reverse El Paso lockdowns while the city was having to call in the national guard and freezer trucks to handle all the bodies. I think of the Texas Lt. Governor saying that old people should be willing to die for the economy (false dichotomy, but neither here nor there). And of course, the CDC/WHO deserves some blame for being hot & cold on masks.

2.) The "Invisible Enemy". Maybe it's bordering on toxic old people worship to continue calling the young adults of WWII the "greatest generation", but they did defeat violent nationalism and fascism in two different theaters of war. Perhaps people think there is more dignity in men storming French beaches and Women stepping up into the workforce than there is in staying home and wearing masks. Being careful about COVID is certainly less glamorous, there's not doubt there.

3.) People are just different now than they were back then. More selfish. More irrationally distrustful of authority. Etc.

I think 1.) and 2.) are the best bets. Any amount of 3.) is pretty unfortunate.

[frugalnacho]

Bad leadership no doubt.  Specifically the entire republican party.  Here are some actual tweets from the president of the united states, within the last few days:

I will be speaking at the SAVE AMERICA RALLY tomorrow on the Ellipse at 11AM Eastern. Arrive early — doors open at 7AM Eastern. BIG CROWDS!

The number of cases and deaths of the China Virus is far exaggerated in the United States because of
@CDCgov’s ridiculous method of determination compared to other countries, many of whom report, purposely, very inaccurately and low. “When in doubt, call it Covid.” Fake News!

sources, because I wouldn't believe this without a link to the actual source either, and it's hard to navigate his twitter because it's so chock full of nonsense:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1346588064026685443

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1345720107255926784

[GuitarStv]

1 and 2 likely play into it a bit.  I'd also propose another:

4) People are soft today.  80 years ago, life was a lot harsher.  You were forced to learn to deal with discomfort and difficulty pretty regularly as part of life.  The majority of the protest and argument against public safety health was because of a flat refusal and an unwillingness to deal with discomfort - possibly just because people are so unfamiliar with it now.

[chemistk]

Fellow Americans; what do you think is at the heart of our refusal to take this seriously? I have a couple of theories.

1.) Bad leadership. President Trump was abysmal of course. But it's not just him. Something I think about a lot is how state wide officials in Texas targeted and reverse El Paso lockdowns while the city was having to call in the national guard and freezer trucks to handle all the bodies. I think of the Texas Lt. Governor saying that old people should be willing to die for the economy (false dichotomy, but neither here nor there). And of course, the CDC/WHO deserves some blame for being hot & cold on masks.

2.) The "Invisible Enemy". Maybe it's bordering on toxic old people worship to continue calling the young adults of WWII the "greatest generation", but they did defeat violent nationalism and fascism in two different theaters of war. Perhaps people think there is more dignity in men storming French beaches and Women stepping up into the workforce than there is in staying home and wearing masks. Being careful about COVID is certainly less glamorous, there's not doubt there.

3.) People are just different now than they were back then. More selfish. More irrationally distrustful of authority. Etc.

I think 1.) and 2.) are the best bets. Any amount of 3.) is pretty unfortunate.

Those are good theories, but I tend to take a simpler, broader assumption (based on direct personal experience with dozens of friends and family who are fervently against the whole thing) -

1) People, in general, fear what they don't understand. As a scientist, I can't tell you how many eyes glaze over when I start to talk about anything in a scientific context. I know this is a sweeping generalization but much of the American populace does not understand, nor cares to understand science beyond that which is useful to them (cooking, baking, volcano experiments). Most of the nonscientifically oriented deniers (anecdotally, most of them...) cherry pick what makes sense to them and ignore the rest. They don't understand science, at all, and instead weaponize it in the same way that hateful and old-fashioned Christians cherry-pick Bible verses to support their claim. This gives them self-anointed justification to make conclusions about the virus, and the pandemic as a whole, that support their fear-based views.

2) Some people love to do things just to piss everyone off. Not a new concept, I know, but my own family is full of people who will take a stand opposite to someone else's simply because they want to piss the other person off or because they hate them for one of a myriad of reasons.

I guess my #1 is a higher level cause to your #1 and 2, but I think it's a whole lot more arbitrary than the fact that we had (and have) elected officials who are fervent deniers - I really do think much of this is the fact that we fear something that we have little tangible control over (you can't just punch a virus in the face) and that stands to disrupt our lives.

[dandarc]

On 3 I don't think is really true that there is significantly more of that today than years or decades ago. Anti-intellectualism has always been present in the US. We tend to see it more when there is a real crisis at hand such as is the case now, but it is always there.

As to what is at the heart of our collective refusal to take this seriously enough - a large factor has to be the white supremacy culture that we all live in. White people, because we are largely sheltered from racial issues, are pushed by our society into an excessive sense of individualism. And to really do well with something like this pandemic requires a massive sense of collective responsibility.

Bad leadership is probably the most to blame for not even approaching the ceiling of what we could reasonably do here in the US in the short term, but the US was certain to do significantly worse than an ideal public health response because of our culture. Improving our culture and country so we are collectively better equipped to handle the next crisis that requires a unified approach is a very long and winding road, but it is happening.

[sui generis]

I agree with you, @mathlete.  A couple of other things:

1. I think a lot of people still don't know people that have had, and esp have died of, COVID and that affects their perceptions of how careful they need to be.  Given that it has a disproportionately deadly impact on low income and people of color, the people that "matter" in our society are even less likely to be exposed to someone that has had a truly negative outcome.  I myself only really *know* one family of people that caught it (my own sister) and they all came out just fine and themselves believe that everyone's being overly careful and won't get the vaccines.  So, I totally agree that people should be taking things seriously when they hear about freezer trucks and no ICU beds, but a lot of people just don't until it affects them personally.  The mobilization in WWII affected...most? families directly.  COVID simply has not.

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk. 

[mathlete]

Bad leadership no doubt.  Specifically the entire republican party.  Here are some actual tweets from the president of the united states, within the last few days:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1345720107255926784

I think I would pay good money to hear him elaborate on the esoterics of how the CDC tracks deaths relative to its peer organizations in other countries.

1 and 2 likely play into it a bit.  I'd also propose another:

4) People are soft today.  80 years ago, life was a lot harsher.  You were forced to learn to deal with discomfort and difficulty pretty regularly as part of life.  The majority of the protest and argument against public safety health was because of a flat refusal and an unwillingness to deal with discomfort - possibly just because people are so unfamiliar with it now.

My #3 was basically a euphemism for your #4. I didn't use "soft" because I usually don't like it when old people tell young people how easy they have it and because I know that some people are suffering very real consequences from the lockdowns. But the more time goes on, and the more financial reporting I read... let's just say I don't think that the ones most virulently protesting lockdowns are necessarily the ones who are most damaged by them economically.

[GuitarStv]

Bad leadership no doubt.  Specifically the entire republican party.  Here are some actual tweets from the president of the united states, within the last few days:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1345720107255926784

I think I would pay good money to hear him elaborate on the esoterics of how the CDC tracks deaths relative to its peer organizations in other countries.

1 and 2 likely play into it a bit.  I'd also propose another:

4) People are soft today.  80 years ago, life was a lot harsher.  You were forced to learn to deal with discomfort and difficulty pretty regularly as part of life.  The majority of the protest and argument against public safety health was because of a flat refusal and an unwillingness to deal with discomfort - possibly just because people are so unfamiliar with it now.

My #3 was basically a euphemism for your #4. I didn't use "soft" because I usually don't like it when old people tell young people how easy they have it and because I know that some people are suffering very real consequences from the lockdowns. But the more time goes on, and the more financial reporting I read... let's just say I don't think that the ones most virulently protesting lockdowns are necessarily the ones who are most damaged by them economically.

I don't think it's rooted in selfishness or irrational distrust of leadership though.  It's rooted in weakness, and (as hard as it may be to do so) should be pitied.

[mathlete]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

I think this is a very good point. It just doesn't seem scary for whatever reason.

Full disclosure, I got COVID. It sucked, but for a younger guy like myself, it amounted to feeling shitty for a few days and losing my appetite for about a week. As soon as my significant other got symptoms, we both went to a drive thru testing place. Then I felt sick as well later that night. We both self-isolated immediately and then for an additional 10 days after getting the positive result.

If I weren't as knee deep in COVID data as a am, or worse, if I were openly skeptical of COVID, maybe I break isolation to go grocery shopping instead of ponying up for contactless delivery. Maybe I break isolation the day my fever breaks instead of waiting. Hell, maybe I don't even get the test.

[Watchmaker]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

Completely agree. I think if this virus was more deadly, it would be less dangerous (because people would have no choice but to take it seriously).

[mm1970]

I agree with you, @mathlete.  A couple of other things:

1. I think a lot of people still don't know people that have had, and esp have died of, COVID and that affects their perceptions of how careful they need to be.  Given that it has a disproportionately deadly impact on low income and people of color, the people that "matter" in our society are even less likely to be exposed to someone that has had a truly negative outcome.  I myself only really *know* one family of people that caught it (my own sister) and they all came out just fine and themselves believe that everyone's being overly careful and won't get the vaccines.  So, I totally agree that people should be taking things seriously when they hear about freezer trucks and no ICU beds, but a lot of people just don't until it affects them personally.  The mobilization in WWII affected...most? families directly.  COVID simply has not.

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

Fellow Americans; what do you think is at the heart of our refusal to take this seriously? I have a couple of theories.

1.) Bad leadership. President Trump was abysmal of course. But it's not just him. Something I think about a lot is how state wide officials in Texas targeted and reverse El Paso lockdowns while the city was having to call in the national guard and freezer trucks to handle all the bodies. I think of the Texas Lt. Governor saying that old people should be willing to die for the economy (false dichotomy, but neither here nor there). And of course, the CDC/WHO deserves some blame for being hot & cold on masks.

2.) The "Invisible Enemy". Maybe it's bordering on toxic old people worship to continue calling the young adults of WWII the "greatest generation", but they did defeat violent nationalism and fascism in two different theaters of war. Perhaps people think there is more dignity in men storming French beaches and Women stepping up into the workforce than there is in staying home and wearing masks. Being careful about COVID is certainly less glamorous, there's not doubt there.

3.) People are just different now than they were back then. More selfish. More irrationally distrustful of authority. Etc.

I think 1.) and 2.) are the best bets. Any amount of 3.) is pretty unfortunate.

These are all interesting thoughts.  My dad was a hard man, with a hard life.  Born in 1926.  Lived through the depression.  Stormed the beaches of Normandy at 18.  Never ever talked about the war.   (I learned he landed at Normandy a year ago!)  Married, had kids, wife died when she was 29 leaving him with 6 kids.  Gave two up for adoption.  Was a single parent for 7 years. 

He was also not a very nice man, after he remarried.  So, hard, tough, "suck it up", yes.  But there were definitely disadvantages that came along with that, and my mom (and his daughters) suffered for it.

As far as people not knowing others with COVID, I really think that's still a thing.  (Like Meghan McCain suddenly coming to a realization on paid maternity leave).  My BIL's father flew on a plane on vacation over Thanksgiving, died of COVID.   My FIL has not been isolating...he and his girlfriend have friends, play golf, you know - maybe they dialed it back a tiny bit.  It's not like he didn't know it was a thing - for crying out loud, his son-in-law's dad just DIED for crying out loud. And his sister was on a ventilator!!  But...his GF got COVID and he got COVID and they were going to bars and the club...now he's been in and out of the hospital (currently in) and...goodness I only hope he realizes how fucking serious it is.  Like, we barely leave the house except to walk or grocery shop.  And now my DH asks me "if my dad dies, do I fly to the funeral?"  Um, that's a hard no. 

There are still people who ignore the doctors, and say "there aren't that many people in the hospital" and ... god people are stupid.

[frugalnacho]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

I think this is a very good point. It just doesn't seem scary for whatever reason.

Full disclosure, I got COVID. It sucked, but for a younger guy like myself, it amounted to feeling shitty for a few days and losing my appetite for about a week. As soon as my significant other got symptoms, we both went to a drive thru testing place. Then I felt sick as well later that night. We both self-isolated immediately and then for an additional 10 days after getting the positive result.

If I weren't as knee deep in COVID data as a am, or worse, if I were openly skeptical of COVID, maybe I break isolation to go grocery shopping instead of ponying up for contactless delivery. Maybe I break isolation the day my fever breaks instead of waiting. Hell, maybe I don't even get the test.

I think it's hit or miss.  It's definitely worse for old people, but you not getting very sick is likely a combination of being young, healthy, and lucky.  I'm not sure of the scientific reason, but while some people have no symptoms, or mild symptoms, other people get their asses completely kicked.  I have a coworker that has been out for over a month.  Spent a week in the hospital on oxygen.  He's younger and in better shape than me.  Just the luck of the draw that it kicked his ass so bad while most other coworkers have had relatively mild symptoms.  He's still not back yet as he can't get a negative test result. 

I don't know if I'm in the 50% of people that won't have symptoms, the 40% who will have mild symptoms, or the 10% who will have severe symptoms, or the small percentage who will have symptoms so severe I die.  I also don't know what category anyone else will be in either.  I don't know if you can know until you get it.   

[mathlete]

I think it's hit or miss.  It's definitely worse for old people, but you not getting very sick is likely a combination of being young, healthy, and lucky.  I'm not sure of the scientific reason, but while some people have no symptoms, or mild symptoms, other people get their asses completely kicked.  I have a coworker that has been out for over a month.  Spent a week in the hospital on oxygen.  He's younger and in better shape than me.  Just the luck of the draw that it kicked his ass so bad while most other coworkers have had relatively mild symptoms.  He's still not back yet as he can't get a negative test result. 

I don't know if I'm in the 50% of people that won't have symptoms, the 40% who will have mild symptoms, or the 10% who will have severe symptoms, or the small percentage who will have symptoms so severe I die.  I also don't know what category anyone else will be in either.  I don't know if you can know until you get it.

I'm certainly lucky that it wasn't worse for me than it was.

[frugalnacho]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

Completely agree. I think if this virus was more deadly, it would be less dangerous (because people would have no choice but to take it seriously).

Have you never seen a zombie movie?  I used to think it was outlandish that someone would just walk around so cavalier while there are FUCKING ZOMBIES walking all over, but after this year it seems entirely plausible. 

This zombie bullshit is FAKE NEWS! It's not gonna stop me from living my best life! I need a haircut! Rabble rabble rabble!

Also the phrase "avoid like the plague" needs to be updated because for most people there seems to be no distinction between "avoiding like the plague" and "business as usual".

[Paper Chaser]

The US isn't the only "Western" nation that's struggled with the virus, so I don't know that things like specific politicians or even political leaning have really played that much of a role. I think it comes down to ideologies and lifestyle of individuals that make up the society more than anything. Many western nations seem to be fractured, with a populace that views things in polarized, "us vs them" ways. Asian nations tend to have a more collective view of society, rather than individualistic and have been more successful with the virus.

I also don't know that current generations are really much "softer"  or more selfish than previous generations. 60% of US military personnel in WW2 were drafted, and of the 40% who volunteered, many joined specifically to avoid being drafted (therefore able to choose the branch and level of danger, rather than having it done for you). Plenty of those that stayed behind refused to shut their lights off at night and made it easier for German U boats to sink a bunch of US merchant ships on the coast. Food rationing was met with lots of resistance too. The Greatest Generation had it's fair share of self centered actions too.

[T-Money$]

I hope it's finally setting in that this is not simply a choice of trading personal safety for personal freedom. A pandemic is a public health crisis and taxes public resources.

There exists no endless font of hospital beds and morgue capacity. There's not an endless army of nurses, doctors and support staff waiting to handle the excess morbidity and mortality.

The life-years lost from the hysterical political driven pandemic reaction (like yours)
is much more significant the disease itself.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28304/w28304.pdf

Lockdowns don’t work (California, Germany, UK).  The virus can not be stopped.

The virus doesn’t seem scary because it isn’t.  99.7% survival rate and the majority of morbidity comes from those elderly with pre-existing conditions in long term care homes.

Public health “experts” and politicians are much more dangerous than COVID. 

[frugalnacho]

He's got a point.  It barely even killed 366k americans with 10 months of extreme mitigation measures.

[Kris]

I hope it's finally setting in that this is not simply a choice of trading personal safety for personal freedom. A pandemic is a public health crisis and taxes public resources.

There exists no endless font of hospital beds and morgue capacity. There's not an endless army of nurses, doctors and support staff waiting to handle the excess morbidity and mortality.

The life-years lost from the hysterical political driven pandemic reaction (like yours)
is much more significant the disease itself.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28304/w28304.pdf

Lockdowns don’t work (California, Germany, UK).  The virus can not be stopped.

The virus doesn’t seem scary because it isn’t.  99.7% survival rate and the majority of morbidity comes from those elderly with pre-existing conditions in long term care homes.

Public health “experts” and politicians are much more dangerous than COVID.

Numbers are dangerous in the hands of the innumerate.

[deborah]

In December the global news service Bloomberg ranked the performance of the world’s 53 largest economies in tackling the pandemic. Bloomberg scored countries according to how effectively the virus had been contained while creating the least disruption to business and social activity.

The global top 10 were ranked in the following order: New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Norway, Finland, Japan, South Korea, China and Denmark.

Surprise, surprise, most of these are WESTERN DEMOCRACIES.

[RetiredAt63]

In December the global news service Bloomberg ranked the performance of the world’s 53 largest economies in tackling the pandemic. Bloomberg scored countries according to how effectively the virus had been contained while creating the least disruption to business and social activity.

The global top 10 were ranked in the following order: New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Norway, Finland, Japan, South Korea, China and Denmark.

Surprise, surprise, most of these are WESTERN DEMOCRACIES.

And the country north of the US (that's Canada, for those geographically challenged), with winter already here, was #11.  Honestly I thought we would be worse.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

I think this is a very good point. It just doesn't seem scary for whatever reason.

Full disclosure, I got COVID. It sucked, but for a younger guy like myself, it amounted to feeling shitty for a few days and losing my appetite for about a week. As soon as my significant other got symptoms, we both went to a drive thru testing place. Then I felt sick as well later that night. We both self-isolated immediately and then for an additional 10 days after getting the positive result.

If I weren't as knee deep in COVID data as a am, or worse, if I were openly skeptical of COVID, maybe I break isolation to go grocery shopping instead of ponying up for contactless delivery. Maybe I break isolation the day my fever breaks instead of waiting. Hell, maybe I don't even get the test.

Covid is interesting because its deadliness increases more rapidly with age / co-morbidities than, say, influenza. For healthy people in their 30s and under the death rate is essentially zero. For people in their 80s and over it approaches 10-15%. It's hard to get a large part of society (with the median age of many countries in the 30s, it might be as much as half) to get worried about something that won't kill them. They could worry about the effects on parents and grandparents but second-order thinking is not always a strong trait. I don't think we can expect a population that smokes, gambles, uses payday loans etc to really take strong measures (voluntarily) against covid because advance planning against an abstract threat is just difficult.

[alsoknownasDean]

Lockdowns don’t work (California, Germany, UK).  The virus can not be stopped.

The virus doesn’t seem scary because it isn’t.  99.7% survival rate and the majority of morbidity comes from those elderly with pre-existing conditions in long term care homes.

Public health “experts” and politicians are much more dangerous than COVID.

You're utterly misguided.

The lockdown worked here, we went from 725 cases per day to two months of zero new community cases.

[bacchi]

The virus doesn’t seem scary because it isn’t.  99.7% survival rate and the majority of morbidity comes from those elderly with pre-existing conditions in long term care homes.

Source?

And, no, that stupid photoshopped image from the CDC doesn't count.

[Poundwise]

I hope it's finally setting in that this is not simply a choice of trading personal safety for personal freedom. A pandemic is a public health crisis and taxes public resources.

There exists no endless font of hospital beds and morgue capacity. There's not an endless army of nurses, doctors and support staff waiting to handle the excess morbidity and mortality.

The life-years lost from the hysterical political driven pandemic reaction (like yours)
is much more significant the disease itself.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28304/w28304.pdf

Lockdowns don’t work (California, Germany, UK).  The virus can not be stopped.

The virus doesn’t seem scary because it isn’t.  99.7% survival rate and the majority of morbidity comes from those elderly with pre-existing conditions in long term care homes.

Public health “experts” and politicians are much more dangerous than COVID.

Seriously, where in NY do you live? You realize that about 1 out of 600 of all New Yorkers have died in the last 9 months. And only 1/5th to 1/4th of us have had Covid yet.

[frugalnacho]

I've said it before but I should reiterate: I don't believe tmoney is a legitimate person.  I think they are just trolling the thread for funsies and can safely be ignored.  They've contributed exactly zero to the discussion.

[Davnasty]

I've said it before but I should reiterate: I don't believe tmoney is a legitimate person.  I think they are just trolling the thread for funsies and can safely be ignored.  They've contributed exactly zero to the discussion.

I think it's obvious enough at this point they should be banned. They've probably already been blocked by most of the participants in this thread anyway.

"report to moderators" is at the bottom right of the comment if anyone was wondering

[Paper Chaser]

In December the global news service Bloomberg ranked the performance of the world’s 53 largest economies in tackling the pandemic. Bloomberg scored countries according to how effectively the virus had been contained while creating the least disruption to business and social activity.

The global top 10 were ranked in the following order: New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Norway, Finland, Japan, South Korea, China and Denmark.

Surprise, surprise, most of these are WESTERN DEMOCRACIES.

Of the top 10, exactly half are East Asian cultures, not "western" societies by most standards. It's not the type of government that's going to limit viral spread in a free society, it's the attitude of the populace. And an East Asian Society often has pretty different perspectives and outlooks from Anglo/Western society when it comes to problem solving and one's role within that society. (7 of the 10 nations that you listed are also islands or essentially islands, which we know have an easier logistical path to lockdown their borders and control travel, but that's a separate point)

By the way, doesn't 53 seem like a weird cutoff for national economies? Wouldn't 50 or 55 be a more common and natural place to make that distinction? Why would they choose to make an arbitrary cutoff at 53? Oh wait, NZ is ranked as the 51-53 largest economy in the world (depending on the source), and they had to include it, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

[habanero]

It's not the type of government that's going to limit viral spread in a free society, it's the attitude of the populace.

For the three Nordic countries there (Norway, Denmark and Finland) you can make a pretty strong case for official response being the major difference as the 4th you would expect to see is Sweden given that the 3 others are in there. On a grand scale the culture isn't that different (Finland maybe the biggest exception of the bunch), populations are same-ish (sweden 2x but still only 10 mio), demographics have a lot in common and they all have high-quality public health systems, confidence in government is high and so on. And oh, the Finns are always prepared so when the entire world was overbidding each other for protective equipment for health care staff the finns just dug into their secret stash they have for a rainy day due to somewhat unfortunate experience with their very large eastern neighbor through history.

It is, in my opinion, probably the cleanest example in the western world as to which extent government respons actually makes a difference or not.

[RetiredAt63]

In December the global news service Bloomberg ranked the performance of the world’s 53 largest economies in tackling the pandemic. Bloomberg scored countries according to how effectively the virus had been contained while creating the least disruption to business and social activity.

The global top 10 were ranked in the following order: New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Norway, Finland, Japan, South Korea, China and Denmark.

Surprise, surprise, most of these are WESTERN DEMOCRACIES.

Of the top 10, exactly half are East Asian cultures, not "western" societies by most standards. It's not the type of government that's going to limit viral spread in a free society, it's the attitude of the populace. And an East Asian Society often has pretty different perspectives and outlooks from Anglo/Western society when it comes to problem solving and one's role within that society. (7 of the 10 nations that you listed are also islands or essentially islands, which we know have an easier logistical path to lockdown their borders and control travel, but that's a separate point)

By the way, doesn't 53 seem like a weird cutoff for national economies? Wouldn't 50 or 55 be a more common and natural place to make that distinction? Why would they choose to make an arbitrary cutoff at 53? Oh wait, NZ is ranked as the 51-53 largest economy in the world (depending on the source), and they had to include it, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Well, if you go by top 11 (since it had 53 not 50 we can also be arbitrary) you add another Western democracy, as I mentioned earlier.  Canada, to be specific, since you missed my earlier comment.  A country of 38 million people.  Easy to find on a map, we are that large country in the northern half of the North American continent.

[GuitarStv]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

I think this is a very good point. It just doesn't seem scary for whatever reason.

Full disclosure, I got COVID. It sucked, but for a younger guy like myself, it amounted to feeling shitty for a few days and losing my appetite for about a week. As soon as my significant other got symptoms, we both went to a drive thru testing place. Then I felt sick as well later that night. We both self-isolated immediately and then for an additional 10 days after getting the positive result.

If I weren't as knee deep in COVID data as a am, or worse, if I were openly skeptical of COVID, maybe I break isolation to go grocery shopping instead of ponying up for contactless delivery. Maybe I break isolation the day my fever breaks instead of waiting. Hell, maybe I don't even get the test.

Covid is interesting because its deadliness increases more rapidly with age / co-morbidities than, say, influenza. For healthy people in their 30s and under the death rate is essentially zero. For people in their 80s and over it approaches 10-15%. It's hard to get a large part of society (with the median age of many countries in the 30s, it might be as much as half) to get worried about something that won't kill them. They could worry about the effects on parents and grandparents but second-order thinking is not always a strong trait. I don't think we can expect a population that smokes, gambles, uses payday loans etc to really take strong measures (voluntarily) against covid because advance planning against an abstract threat is just difficult.

As a young person (under 40), I've never really been concerned about getting covid and dying.  You die and you're dead.  Getting it and having long term debilitating impacts (like weird health problems, lung problems, etc.) always seemed a lot scarier.

[Shane]

I've said it before but I should reiterate: I don't believe tmoney is a legitimate person.  I think they are just trolling the thread for funsies and can safely be ignored.  They've contributed exactly zero to the discussion.

I think it's obvious enough at this point they should be banned. They've probably already been blocked by most of the participants in this thread anyway.

"report to moderators" is at the bottom right of the comment if anyone was wondering

I've never "blocked" anyone in this forum. Didn't even realize that was a thing. What would be the purpose of doing that?

[former player]

I've said it before but I should reiterate: I don't believe tmoney is a legitimate person.  I think they are just trolling the thread for funsies and can safely be ignored.  They've contributed exactly zero to the discussion.

I think it's obvious enough at this point they should be banned. They've probably already been blocked by most of the participants in this thread anyway.

"report to moderators" is at the bottom right of the comment if anyone was wondering

I've never "blocked" anyone in this forum. Didn't even realize that was a thing. What would be the purpose of doing that?

Not finding that your blood pressure spikes reading the batshit crazy.

[dandarc]

What @former player said - the forum just says "you've ignored this user - click here to see post". A way to be kind to yourself and prepare for the likely shock if you do choose to read whatever it was.

[dandarc]

tmoney sure looked like legit account until this thread - see the pre-2020 posts from that account. They changed their username right around the time the content made a hard turn towards trolling. Hard not to attach the two in mind, but I'm told people usually do this because their feelings about needing anonymity vs. not change over years. New workplace or whatnot.

Edit: pre-2020 actually means 2018. Maybe account got hacked or something - 2 year gap, then a hard shift in content of posts.

[Paper Chaser]

Of the top 10, exactly half are East Asian cultures, not "western" societies by most standards. It's not the type of government that's going to limit viral spread in a free society, it's the attitude of the populace. And an East Asian Society often has pretty different perspectives and outlooks from Anglo/Western society when it comes to problem solving and one's role within that society. (7 of the 10 nations that you listed are also islands or essentially islands, which we know have an easier logistical path to lockdown their borders and control travel, but that's a separate point)

By the way, doesn't 53 seem like a weird cutoff for national economies? Wouldn't 50 or 55 be a more common and natural place to make that distinction? Why would they choose to make an arbitrary cutoff at 53? Oh wait, NZ is ranked as the 51-53 largest economy in the world (depending on the source), and they had to include it, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Well, if you go by top 11 (since it had 53 not 50 we can also be arbitrary) you add another Western democracy, as I mentioned earlier.  Canada, to be specific, since you missed my earlier comment.  A country of 38 million people.  Easy to find on a map, we are that large country in the northern half of the North American continent.

You mean Greenland? Of course they're doing well with COVID. It's just polar bears and hockey players that live there. There aren't even any humans ;)

But seriously, Canada has done reasonably well. I think they're one of the few countries that might be similar enough to the US in enough aspects to offer a valid comparison (Population difference is massive though). Their ranking in that list is almost entirely due to the availability of vaccines, as most of the other metrics used are quite a bit higher for Canada then the others near the top of the list. But you guys are killing it (relatively speaking). Germany might be another valid comparison for a "Western" power with lots of people and land borders.

Ultimately, the "score" keeping for this pandemic will be done in deaths per capita, so I like to use the Johns Hopkins site for that: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

[JGS1980]

In December the global news service Bloomberg ranked the performance of the world’s 53 largest economies in tackling the pandemic. Bloomberg scored countries according to how effectively the virus had been contained while creating the least disruption to business and social activity.

The global top 10 were ranked in the following order: New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Norway, Finland, Japan, South Korea, China and Denmark.

Surprise, surprise, most of these are WESTERN DEMOCRACIES.

Of the top 10, exactly half are East Asian cultures, not "western" societies by most standards. It's not the type of government that's going to limit viral spread in a free society, it's the attitude of the populace. And an East Asian Society often has pretty different perspectives and outlooks from Anglo/Western society when it comes to problem solving and one's role within that society. (7 of the 10 nations that you listed are also islands or essentially islands, which we know have an easier logistical path to lockdown their borders and control travel, but that's a separate point)

By the way, doesn't 53 seem like a weird cutoff for national economies? Wouldn't 50 or 55 be a more common and natural place to make that distinction? Why would they choose to make an arbitrary cutoff at 53? Oh wait, NZ is ranked as the 51-53 largest economy in the world (depending on the source), and they had to include it, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

China's on that list, seriously? China, who did not act soon enough to limit it spreading to the rest of the world and thereby leading to >1.8 million deaths so far? That China?

[Paper Chaser]

In December the global news service Bloomberg ranked the performance of the world’s 53 largest economies in tackling the pandemic. Bloomberg scored countries according to how effectively the virus had been contained while creating the least disruption to business and social activity.

The global top 10 were ranked in the following order: New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Norway, Finland, Japan, South Korea, China and Denmark.

Surprise, surprise, most of these are WESTERN DEMOCRACIES.

Of the top 10, exactly half are East Asian cultures, not "western" societies by most standards. It's not the type of government that's going to limit viral spread in a free society, it's the attitude of the populace. And an East Asian Society often has pretty different perspectives and outlooks from Anglo/Western society when it comes to problem solving and one's role within that society. (7 of the 10 nations that you listed are also islands or essentially islands, which we know have an easier logistical path to lockdown their borders and control travel, but that's a separate point)

By the way, doesn't 53 seem like a weird cutoff for national economies? Wouldn't 50 or 55 be a more common and natural place to make that distinction? Why would they choose to make an arbitrary cutoff at 53? Oh wait, NZ is ranked as the 51-53 largest economy in the world (depending on the source), and they had to include it, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

China's on that list, seriously? China, who did not act soon enough to limit it spreading to the rest of the world and thereby leading to >1.8 million deaths so far? That China?

The whole ranking system they're using is pretty arbitrary, but it's intended to show who's doing well, "now" more than who's done well overall. It's supposed to be updated monthly. Many of the metrics are geared toward recent data rather than cumulative data from the last year. What have you done for me lately and all that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-resilience-ranking/

[Michael in ABQ]

I recently finished reading an excellent book from about 10 years ago, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard.

Basically he breaks down how the people who settled New England (Yankeedom as he calls it) were very different from the people who settled the deep south, or Appalachia, or any of the other nations within the United States. For instance the Puritans in New England brought a completely different attitude and culture than Scots-Irish borderlanders who settled in Appalachia and eventually most of Texas. Yankeedom is a very communal "we're all in this together" culture whereas Appalachia is very independent and "don't tell me what to do".

There's a good article here with a summary map. https://omaha.com/news/grace-one-nation-not-so-indivisible/article_e227fe02-b581-5031-bf32-0bfd7c55259b.html

Colin Woodard compiled some data back in July showing the differences in Coronavirus spread between the various nations. Not surprisingly you see relatively low spread due to high compliance with wearing masks, social distancing, etc. in those nations with a more communal culture that's comfortable with government regulation (Yankeedom). In those nations with a more individual culture that's leery of government regulation (Appalachia, Deep South, Far West) there is relatively low compliance and more spread.

‘American Nations’ and COVID-19
The 11 regions described in Colin Woodard's 2011 book show dramatic regional differences in how the coronavirus is affecting the United States.

https://www.pressherald.com/2020/07/05/american-nations-and-covid-19/

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

I think this is a very good point. It just doesn't seem scary for whatever reason.

Full disclosure, I got COVID. It sucked, but for a younger guy like myself, it amounted to feeling shitty for a few days and losing my appetite for about a week. As soon as my significant other got symptoms, we both went to a drive thru testing place. Then I felt sick as well later that night. We both self-isolated immediately and then for an additional 10 days after getting the positive result.

If I weren't as knee deep in COVID data as a am, or worse, if I were openly skeptical of COVID, maybe I break isolation to go grocery shopping instead of ponying up for contactless delivery. Maybe I break isolation the day my fever breaks instead of waiting. Hell, maybe I don't even get the test.

Covid is interesting because its deadliness increases more rapidly with age / co-morbidities than, say, influenza. For healthy people in their 30s and under the death rate is essentially zero. For people in their 80s and over it approaches 10-15%. It's hard to get a large part of society (with the median age of many countries in the 30s, it might be as much as half) to get worried about something that won't kill them. They could worry about the effects on parents and grandparents but second-order thinking is not always a strong trait. I don't think we can expect a population that smokes, gambles, uses payday loans etc to really take strong measures (voluntarily) against covid because advance planning against an abstract threat is just difficult.

As a young person (under 40), I've never really been concerned about getting covid and dying.  You die and you're dead.  Getting it and having long term debilitating impacts (like weird health problems, lung problems, etc.) always seemed a lot scarier.

What's the frequency of these effects? There's not been anything mentioned in Australian media about this being a significant phenomenon among the young and healthy.

[GuitarStv]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

I think this is a very good point. It just doesn't seem scary for whatever reason.

Full disclosure, I got COVID. It sucked, but for a younger guy like myself, it amounted to feeling shitty for a few days and losing my appetite for about a week. As soon as my significant other got symptoms, we both went to a drive thru testing place. Then I felt sick as well later that night. We both self-isolated immediately and then for an additional 10 days after getting the positive result.

If I weren't as knee deep in COVID data as a am, or worse, if I were openly skeptical of COVID, maybe I break isolation to go grocery shopping instead of ponying up for contactless delivery. Maybe I break isolation the day my fever breaks instead of waiting. Hell, maybe I don't even get the test.

Covid is interesting because its deadliness increases more rapidly with age / co-morbidities than, say, influenza. For healthy people in their 30s and under the death rate is essentially zero. For people in their 80s and over it approaches 10-15%. It's hard to get a large part of society (with the median age of many countries in the 30s, it might be as much as half) to get worried about something that won't kill them. They could worry about the effects on parents and grandparents but second-order thinking is not always a strong trait. I don't think we can expect a population that smokes, gambles, uses payday loans etc to really take strong measures (voluntarily) against covid because advance planning against an abstract threat is just difficult.

As a young person (under 40), I've never really been concerned about getting covid and dying.  You die and you're dead.  Getting it and having long term debilitating impacts (like weird health problems, lung problems, etc.) always seemed a lot scarier.

What's the frequency of these effects? There's not been anything mentioned in Australian media about this being a significant phenomenon among the young and healthy.

Currently unknown, and there's no good way of tracking it as far as I'm aware.  People who get covid with mild symptoms sometimes end up becoming covid long haulers . . . so it's hard to tell exact numbers.  Also, no organization seems to be trying to tally up the long haulers.  Just infections and deaths.

This WHO slide show indicates that around 20% of people 18 - 34 who get covid get prolonged symptoms (lasting 3+ weeks).  https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk-comms-updates/update-36-long-term-symptoms.pdf?sfvrsn=5d3789a6_2#:~:text=Approximately%2010%2D15%25%20of%20cases,about%205%25%20become%20critically%20ill.&text=For%20some%20people%2C%20some%20symptoms,to%20others%20during%20this%20time.  It also has some comparison with SARS where 40% of people who recovered from the disease had symptoms of chronic fatigue 3.5 years after infection.

[American GenX]

2. This is really an extension of the above, but I feel like COVID is in this sweet spot (or, actually, anti-sweet spot) where it is causing horrific numbers of death and (possibly) disability, but is also not quite deadly enough.  Like, we all expected a pandemic to be like the movies, where everybody is in full-time terror and working on it, and there's no time to be living any sort of normal life still.  There are no movies about a pandemic that only kills 1-3% of people that get it and for some people they never feel almost a single symptom.  It's like the perfect virus to cause a ton of damage because of how it lulls a lot of people into not worrying.  I've long suspected that even a slightly more deadly & contagious virus would actually kill a lot fewer people because it would actually *scare* people enough to get them to take the precautions that matter in reducing risk.

I think this is a very good point. It just doesn't seem scary for whatever reason.

Full disclosure, I got COVID. It sucked, but for a younger guy like myself, it amounted to feeling shitty for a few days and losing my appetite for about a week. As soon as my significant other got symptoms, we both went to a drive thru testing place. Then I felt sick as well later that night. We both self-isolated immediately and then for an additional 10 days after getting the positive result.

If I weren't as knee deep in COVID data as a am, or worse, if I were openly skeptical of COVID, maybe I break isolation to go grocery shopping instead of ponying up for contactless delivery. Maybe I break isolation the day my fever breaks instead of waiting. Hell, maybe I don't even get the test.

Covid is interesting because its deadliness increases more rapidly with age / co-morbidities than, say, influenza. For healthy people in their 30s and under the death rate is essentially zero. For people in their 80s and over it approaches 10-15%. It's hard to get a large part of society (with the median age of many countries in the 30s, it might be as much as half) to get worried about something that won't kill them. They could worry about the effects on parents and grandparents but second-order thinking is not always a strong trait. I don't think we can expect a population that smokes, gambles, uses payday loans etc to really take strong measures (voluntarily) against covid because advance planning against an abstract threat is just difficult.

As a young person (under 40), I've never really been concerned about getting covid and dying.  You die and you're dead.  Getting it and having long term debilitating impacts (like weird health problems, lung problems, etc.) always seemed a lot scarier.

What's the frequency of these effects? There's not been anything mentioned in Australian media about this being a significant phenomenon among the young and healthy.

It can be very significant, even in the young and healthy.  They can also die.  So many comments I read mention death rates but ignore the other problems left behind after having COVID-19 if you survive.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Thanks GuitarStv for the stats. Hard to make much out of that. Time will tell.

It can be very significant, even in the young and healthy.  They can also die.

Not a single young person (I define young as being early 30s or younger) has died in my country of 25 million.

[deborah]

What's the frequency of these effects? There's not been anything mentioned in Australian media about this being a significant phenomenon among the young and healthy.

Actually, there is - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-23/long-term-effects-of-covid-study-in-medical-journal/13007498

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

That article didn't say anything about the young and/or healthy. In terms of statistics these are the only statistics provided:

Researchers at Sydney's St Vincent's Hospital followed 78 patients from April 2020, including nine who were hospitalised.

Two months after first getting sick, 31 patients had persistent symptoms including 17 with fatigue, 15 with shortness of breath and four with chest tightness.

Dr Charles said international research put the proportion of COVID-19 patients who became "long haulers" at between 2 and 10 per cent of cases.

I wouldn't say 2-10% is a high figure and in any event that still doesn't distinguish between all cases and the cases involving young/healthy patients.

[middo]

Thanks GuitarStv for the stats. Hard to make much out of that. Time will tell.

It can be very significant, even in the young and healthy.  They can also die.

Not a single young person (I define young as being early 30s or younger) has died in my country of 25 million.

Victoria had a male in their 20's die in the second wave.  Look up the vic dhhs website, under case locations.  It is a bit further down the page.

So about 1 in 750 or so for Victoria.

[American GenX]

Thanks GuitarStv for the stats. Hard to make much out of that. Time will tell.

It can be very significant, even in the young and healthy.  They can also die.

Not a single young person (I define young as being early 30s or younger) has died in my country of 25 million.

Well there are other countries.  "Young" doesn't have a defined age range, but you missed an important point I tried to make:

So many comments I read mention death rates but ignore the other problems left behind after having COVID-19 if you survive.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Thanks GuitarStv for the stats. Hard to make much out of that. Time will tell.

It can be very significant, even in the young and healthy.  They can also die.

Not a single young person (I define young as being early 30s or younger) has died in my country of 25 million.

Victoria had a male in their 20's die in the second wave.  Look up the vic dhhs website, under case locations.  It is a bit further down the page.

So about 1 in 750 or so for Victoria.

It's been classified as a 'reportable death' which rules out it being only due to covid.

https://www.standard.net.au/story/6920101/coroner-to-review-youngest-covid-19-death/

Dan Andrews harped on it to try to make the virus seem as if it was deadlier to young people.

Anyone who dies with covid in his or her system is classified as a covid death even if covid was not the cause of death.

If covid had been the cause of death for the man in his 20s his death would not have been reportable. Look up the coroner's court definition of reportable death.

[OtherJen]

Thanks GuitarStv for the stats. Hard to make much out of that. Time will tell.

It can be very significant, even in the young and healthy.  They can also die.

Not a single young person (I define young as being early 30s or younger) has died in my country of 25 million.

Well there are other countries.  "Young" doesn't have a defined age range, but you missed an important point I tried to make:

So many comments I read mention death rates but ignore the other problems left behind after having COVID-19 if you survive.

Yeah, that's been an ongoing problem here for months. I'm in my early 40s and know people in my age bracket who have been very sick with it for weeks, and one person who died. It's statistically unlikely that I will die from it, but I don't like the odds of being too sick to work for weeks and then having ongoing complications. I've never been interested in Russian roulette and quite frankly don't have the luxury of that much sick/idle time.

[Abe]

It is unclear at this time what the long-term effects, if any, are for non-critically ill covid patients. The most concerning of the reported signs (not necessarily symptoms, but findings on imaging) is damage to the cardiac muscle cells, especially in the right heart. The caveat being it is unclear whether or not these changes are transient and occur in other respiratory illnesses like influenza. Primarily it’s because most respiratory illnesses don’t affect the heart directly like covid seems to do. What is known is the damage pattern seen is associated with non-ischemic (not from blocked arteries) cardiomyopathy (heart damage). This concerns us because those injuries are generally not reversibleand can cause long-term damage because the right heart has less reserve.

The other concern is if covid caused pulmonary fibrosis in less severe cases. We know that in critically ill patients with severe lung injury (covid it not), pulmonary fibrosis (scarring) is common and 40% of patients have long-term severely diminished exercise tolerance as a result. We don’t know if less severe lung injury causes that, since it is relatively uncommon in otherwise fairly healthy people. The sheer number of infected people suggests that we will see an uptick in such chronic diseases. However the scale of this is all fairly hard to know as there isn’t a lot of data available yet.

The other long-term effects seem to suggest a low-level autoimmune response that may be triggered by covid. We do know that some viruses will cause secondary autoimmune disorders for reasons that aren’t well understood. EBV causing mono is an example of this. That is self-limiting, as are most post-infectious autoimmune symptoms. This suggests that the other effects will resolve over time. If they are manifestation of irreversible cardiac or pulmonary injury, however, they may not.

Several hospitals around the world are studying patients who survive severe covid and a few are also tracking long-term effects for less severe disease. It will be some time before we have any real answers.