A map of the main known genetic variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that
causes COVID-19 disease. The map is being kept on the nextstrain.org
website, which tracks pathogen evolution.
(Photo: nextstrain.org)
Posted on 04/06/2020 7:10:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Suppose there were a deadly virus that disproportionately attacked Jewish people, akin to Tay-Sachs disease, but was contagious via the air through sneezing, or via direct human-to-human touch, or indirectly, via cardboard or metal. What would the proper procedure be to reduce its spread? Would it be to quarantine everyone, given that this sickness affected virtually only members of the Jewish faith? Of course not; it would be to isolate and protect Jews alone.
Suppose there were another virus that disproportionately attacked black people, similar to sickle cell anemia, with the same characteristics. Again, the policy to limit the spread of this disease would be to isolate, for their own benefit, black Americans and only them.
If this were the case, and thank God it is not, there would be cries to the heavens about Anti-Semitism or anti-black racism. Would our society support the implementation of this partial isolation strategy? Probably not, given the power that the of political correctness now enjoys.
Why does it make sense to approach these issues from the point of microeconomics, focusing only on the victims, and not macroeconomics, taking virtually everyone out of circulation? That is because there is more than one way to die, and if the labor force is almost entirely depleted, starvation, death by exposure, will ensue. We want to minimize total unnecessary deaths, not only those that emanate from COVID-19.
These are made up examples. But the coronavirus is a real one. It disproportionately attacks the elderly.
The evidence in this regard is stark. In South Korea, for example, the recent death rate on the part of those afflicted with this dread disease aged 80 and over was 10.4% and, for those in their 70s, 5.35%. It was 1.51% for patients 60 to 69 and 0.37% for the 50-somethings.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
In South Korea, those 29 and younger registered no deaths whatsoever.
A similar result ensued in China. Eighty-plus: a death rate of 18% of patients; 70–79: 9/8%; 60–69: 4.6%; 50–59: 1.3%; 40–49: .4%; 30–39: 0.19%; 20–29: 0.09%; 10–19: 0.02%; and 0–9, less than 0.01%.
An unknown percentage of fatalities from the coronavirus was attributed to patients with weakened immune systems due to heart conditions, diabetes, emphysema, asthma, and other such afflictions.
Young people, with a cutoff point of 60 years old, are almost guaranteed not to perish if they contract the coronavirus at least in small doses, assuming they have no other medical difficulties. If they are allowed out of isolation, and contract the disease, the better for the overall human race at very little risk to themselves — herd immunity and all that.
All generalizations are dangerous. But to some extent, this virus indicates that people of retirement age shouldn’t be working right now. And people who are too young to retire should be going to work as usual.
But we nuked the economy instead.
Either India is not testing enough or their culture is making the difference. Indians do not shake hands. Physical touching with person of opposite sex is avoided except the spouse. 1350 million people with so few deaths due to covid-19 is remarkable.
I’m not in favor of mandatory quarantining of “the elderly” or their complete exclusion from the workforce. For one thing, the most quarantined elderly - those in nursing homes or other isolating circumstances - are those with the highest death rate, simply because they’re in a sort of backwater of life and are thus very vulnerable.
But I really do think a highly suggested retirement age of 65 should come back into effect. That is, companies should be allowed to set that as a general standard if they feel it would be good; if not, based on their industry, they don’t have to.
For one thing, this would open up a lot of jobs to young people, particularly in academic areas, etc. Faculty never have to retire, and many of these people are completely out of touch with their discipline, burned out and using the same old yellowed paper notes year after year, but unwilling out of pride to retire (even though they have comfy benefits, etc.). So thus younger faculty never get a shot at it. I know someone hired to replace a department chair who was “about to retire” - and almost 10 years later, the chair was still there and finally left only after some kind of health crisis.
So yes, I think older workers should be encouraged to retire, go on to a second career (easy enough to do nowadays), take up their favorite research project, or whatever. But let the younger folks get a shot at it.
That might also make schools prepare young people better and more realistically.
Namaste
His premise is incorrect. It attacks everyone. It affects the elderly more severely.
Their number has been growing at more than 10% per day for the last week. They are just getting started. They started their lockdown a weeks ago.
Not saying you aren’t correct, I am merely pointing out they are behind Italy and the Us.
India is moving up the chart like a song with a bullet.
Thanks for the info!
Good old Walter, perhaps the only dependable Austrian anarchist left...
On balance I am in agreement with what this article seems to say. If one were to do a calculation of the cost of extending life-span by a month (or in terms of months) it is likely that a lot of people would speak out against the current approach.
The question could be in the realm of: How much should we spend to extend the life of someone from Age X to Age X plus Y months? Becomes a very difficult discussion because emotion seems to know no boundaries.
Still, with all the data that is out there it is a very reasonable way to frame the issue. Some day the calculation will be done and a decision can be made as to whether or not the X,000 lives saved was worth the money spent.
But here is an example calculation: $10 trillion divided by 200,000 lives = $50 million per life.
OR another example: $10 trillion divided by 1 million lives = $10 million per life.
Once you put these numbers out there - well, you invite others to call you a HEARTLESS BASTARD.
You’re old so die.
“1350 million people”
Cleverish.
https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,0,420.html
Scroll to the affected age groups.
Now look at the infection numbers vs. hospitalization numbers.
It’s whupping the 40-60yr olds a@@es.
over 10% of the 40-50yr olds are hospitalized with it. 30+% of the 50-60yr olds are hospitalized. Die with it? probably not. Seriously affected and not working? yup. Who pays for that?
The 40-60yr old age group is the ‘big earner’ one. The one that manages companies. Pays the most taxes.
Those are the people you want to go back to work to run the economy.
The 20-40 somethings can’t do it by themselves.
Yeah, it woulda been so much better if we’d just let people die. That’s the real American Spirit.
I really don’t think I said anything remotely like that.
I hope i die of old age.
Nothing cleverish about facts?
“I hope i die of old age.”
You and me both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.