Posted on 05/28/2020 12:08:33 PM PDT by absalom01
Americans are vigorously debating the merits of continuing to lock down the U.S. economy to prevent the spread of COVID-19. A single statistic may hold the key to resolving this debate: the astounding share of deaths occurring in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
Nursing homes and assisted living facilities: The #1 COVID problem
2.1 million Americans, representing 0.62% of the U.S. population, reside in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. (Nursing homes are residences for seniors needing help with activities of daily living, such as taking a shower or getting dressed, who also require 24/7 medical supervision; assisted living facilities are designed for seniors who need help with activities of daily living, but don’t require full-time on-site medical supervision.)
According to an analysis that Gregg Girvan and I conducted for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, as of May 22, in the 39 states that currently report such figures, an astounding 43% of all COVID-19 deaths have taken place in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
His decision to send infected patients back to long-term care facilities effectively created the disaster in the US.
Oh, and the CDC just admitted, today, that the "lockdown" was never needed to "slow the spread" and "flatten the curve". And before my fellow fearpers chime in, this doesn't mean that the CCP Virus is "just the flu", it's obviously not; but it does suggest that we should change our approach to dealing with this bug.
You say that as if they are not part of the same plandemic.
We don’t call it that because it sounds clever.
I see what you did there. Very clever.
‘the CDC just admitted, today, that the “lockdown” was never needed to “slow the spread” and “flatten the curve”.’
what precisely did they say about it...?
For your interest.
PA, OH, MN, VA, NC - be careful living in a nursing home in a swing state with a Dem or RINO guv
Almost all under Democrat rule.
So the other 99.4% of the population have suffered “only” 57,000 deaths in 3 months? Not adjusting for the likely undercount? And the impact of existing restrictions
Well, what are we waiting for?
Democrat states.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
Bottom line is that they are now saying that, while this disease is highly contagious, it's a lot less contagious than previously thought, and is only a serious threat of death to the elderly, at least at a mass population level.
In other words, the "Lockdown" has been tacitly admitted to be a mistake. In fact, some states got it exactly backwards by sending infected patients into SNF/s and ALF's, where the population was highly vulnerable. We should have protected the SNF's and the ALF's, and just used conventional non-pharmaceutical interventions, rather than shutting down the economy.
That's the consensus opinion on FR, but I think that it's significant that the CDC is now making data available that support that view.
I'd love to see video / source link of that statement. There are plenty of folks who's noses I'd love to rub with that truth.
The lockdown was supposed to prevent overwhelming the hospitals which is also why Cuomo and Murphy did the stupid moves they did.
It doesn’t surprise me that covid deaths are higher in these facilities because they are the departure lounges of life.
I distrust the current death numbers from all sources though. Instead I trust actuarial statistics.
At age 80 the probability of dying in the next 12 months is 5.87%. Having just turned 80 I looked it up. The US population of those 80 and above is 37,410,000. The probability for those older than 80 is certainly higher than at 80, but if we multiply .0587 x 37 million, we get 2.2 million souls will die in the next year. Considering that only 2.9 million will die in the US from all causes in all age groups, it shouldn’t surprise us that this cohort has been hardest hit. They constitue 75% of all deaths normally.
We won’t know until it’s over what the whole story is but it is very likely that many of the nursing home deaths would have happened in a year anyway. The virus just concentrated them in the past 3 months.
If that’s the case, then we should see lower than expected death rates for the rest of the year, as the very vulnerable are already dead.
I linked to the source document in 10, above.
The thing is, they admitted it, but didn’t come right out and say it.
Just look at their table, where they give updated numbers they are using for their models. One example: they are currently thinking that the CCP Virus has a natural R0 of 2.5, not the higher numbers used previously. If that’s correct, and the more recent JAMA and Hong Kong studies on non-pharmaceutical interventions are correct, that 2.5 can be brought well below 1 for anyone other than someone who lives at a congregate residence facility of some kind.
So we should spend our money and our resources protecting THOSE people, and let everyone get back to work right away.
What under count would that be?
I think you’re right on all fronts. Another way of saying it is that if you consider the total number of years of life lost, it’s probably going to be a small number relative to the effects of the “lockdown”.
I’ll give Trump the benefit of the doubt, as I think he acted on the best available information at the time. But I also think that he’s wised up based on a lot of factors, including the type of reasoning you provide in your post.
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.