On 1), what do you consider "not that serious"? IE, what are your metrics of choice, and what are the acceptable values?
Regarding the cost-benefit discussion, my perspective is that people only want to discuss the downsides from a reduced economy. Second order effects include reduced vehicle deaths, reduced deaths from pollution, etc. IE, my discussions has felt agenda driven because it considers first order effects only.
If we're going to compare apples-to-apples, I'm willing to have that conversation. If the conversation is limited to "people die during recessions", it's a pretty clear signal that agenda is driving and would not be a productive use of my time.
We are quite a lot of people that fear the operation will be successful but the patient is dead with the Corona actions being taken. Case in point, 26.5 million americans have sought unemployment benefits (https://vastuullisuusuutiset.fi/en/weben/women-bear-brunt-of...).
Your argument supports the statement that coronavirus is not as dangerous for young people compared to old people. And that it's really serious for old people.
There remains a required link to why this isn't serious for young people. And from there, an argument that this situation is better than the other scenarios (including 2nd order effects from other scenarios).
> Over 90% of the dead so far are old with comorbidites such as Hypertension and Diabetes
What's your definition of "old"?
I looked at your statista.com link and about 2/3 of deaths in NY are from people aged 75 and up. That leaves a non-trivial number of deaths for "middle-aged" people (and maybe younger).
Also, I don't know many middle-agers without some co-morbid condition, so I'm not sure we can just ascribe the deaths exclusively to "old sick people" because an enormous portion of the US population is "sick" with a morbid condition.
That being said, I will admit that there are many conflicting pieces of data flying about.
Are the PCR and antibody tests reliable enough to base our lock-down decisions?
Do we already have "herd immunity" and we're just too stupid/reluctant/lack-the-testing-capacity to realize it?
I have no clue. From my vantage-point it seems that most of us have our philosophical flags planted and we aren't willing to soberly assess where we are and maybe change our opinions.
It would be "nice" to have an AMA from an epidemiologist with expertise in this area to cut through the noise.
Coronary Heart Disease, Lung cancer and Hypertension can all be mitigated by a healthy life and the numbers seem to suggest that Corona has made these illnesses even more serious than before.
An AMA would be great and i can certainly see that being middle-aged with a co-morbid condition has gotten a lot more serious.
If I break both of your legs, that's serious. You're not dead.
If you catch AIDS, that's pretty serious. You're also not dead for a pretty long time.
If I poke your eyes out, that's serious. You're also not dead.
You've redefined a serious medical problem at one which kills you. COVID19 disables far more people than it kills. We don't know how many more, and we won't know for quite a while. With lung damage, most doctors believe the damage is permanent, but some believe people will recover in a decade or two. With other organ damage, we're just speculating.
If the argument is that more people will die from economic recession, it's a necessary component. What's the rationale for excluding it? Without 2nd order effects, it doesn't seem like the correct comparison.
As mentioned before, 20% of NY deaths are nursing home patients. 37% are 80 or older.
I'm on mobile and a bit lazy, but check out death rates for the flu in younger populations and compare them to this virus. The virus has a higher mortality rate but not enough to be worth worrying about in younger populations.
>Regarding the cost-benefit discussion, my perspective is that people only want to discuss the downsides from a reduced economy.
While keeping the benefits in mind is an important part of this analysis, the fact is the pre-quarantine deaths were already accepted as "worth it" given that there was no political will to reduce them.
But yes, we should tally the reduction in deaths, pollution, etc.
So 13k deaths in NY (so far) are under 80 years old. That sounds pretty dangerous to me.
Comparison to the flu could indicate that we underindex on all these other causes of death. It doesn't make those death numbers some magical line where now it's worth it, because Coronavirus deaths in 2 months equal annual flu deaths.
If you're adding everything up, please don't omit the costs of long-term disability from COVID19-related lung damage. That swings the numbers completely.
If it were just 3.6% of the US population dying, I would understand the economic versus public health argument. It comes down to values at that point: how much is a human life worth?
But that changes completely when you consider how many people we'll either need to support for decades, or who will have lower economic output. Those costs get astronomical, and at least by my ballpark estimates, align public health with economic outcomes completely.
Regarding the cost-benefit discussion, my perspective is that people only want to discuss the downsides from a reduced economy. Second order effects include reduced vehicle deaths, reduced deaths from pollution, etc. IE, my discussions has felt agenda driven because it considers first order effects only.
If we're going to compare apples-to-apples, I'm willing to have that conversation. If the conversation is limited to "people die during recessions", it's a pretty clear signal that agenda is driving and would not be a productive use of my time.