2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

[yzerman19]

6 minutes ago, keikla said:

We've tried actemra on some patients.  Results seem to be mixed.  I've heard some hospitals say they've had good results, but I know several others (including mine) that haven't.  We had one patient decline very quickly and die the next day. 

Ideally you would want to get procal levels beforehand, which not every hospital has the capability of doing.  The purpose of the procal level is to indicate whether the patient just has only the viral infection, or if there is an overlapping bacterial infection.  It's difficult to otherwise know since you're standard markers (fever, signs of sepsis) are already present.  If you give actemra to a patient with a bacterial infection, you  likely just signed their death certificate.  In addition to procal levels beforehand, you should do blood cultures within 48hrs since some covid patients have developed bacteremia post-infusion.

For awhile it was assumed that everyone in ICU level care had a cytokine storm.  Now it seems to be only some patients.  Starting to think it's more of a microvascular thrombotic process than a normal respiratory infection.

It’s almost scary how this virus appears to have the ability to trip a multitude of fatal processes...

[Cratter]

12 minutes ago, keikla said:

Haha true, but mine is based on personal experience.  I guess that report being 4 days old means a couple thousand deaths aren't included.  Of our 3, 2 have been since that report was generated.  

They have updated ones on the NYC health website if you're interested in seeing the new data.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

[Cratter]

304 people under the age of 45 so far have died in NYC with the Coronavirus. 

When will it be okay for people under 45 in NYC to go outside and play again?

[farce poobah]

1 hour ago, keikla said:

Thanks!  Looks like obesity wasn't taken into account.  Still surprised that number is as low as it is.  57 deaths for healthy 18-44 in NYC proper (I'm assuming unknown conditions is no conditions)?  I'm pretty sure we're at 3 just at my hospital alone.  NYS website says there are 66 hospitals in NYC.  So roughly one patient in that category per hospital?  I don't believe it.

Though this table is from 4 days ago, so that's already quite outdated.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20057794v1.full.pdf+html

A NYC area study where obesity (BMI>40) is taken into account.

[Cratter]

2 have died in North Dakota with the Coronavirus under the age of 70.

Is it okay if anyone under retirement age goes out for a sit down steak and haircut soon? 

[UNDlaw80]

25 minutes ago, Cratter said:

304 people under the age of 45 so far have died in NYC with the Coronavirus. 

When will it be okay for people under 45 in NYC to go outside and play again?

Probably when Covid dies down, or an antidote is distributed. 

I'd like to think, when you're the epicenter of a pandemic, something like social responsibility enters into the equation.     

[Oxbow6]

1 hour ago, UNDlaw80 said:

Probably when Covid dies down, or an antidote is distributed. 

I'd like to think, when you're the epicenter of a pandemic, something like social responsibility enters into the equation.     

Right.........because 0.0055% of all NYC residents 45 years old and younger have died from COVID so far. Least that's a higher percentage than have died from murder in NYC in that age range so far this year.

[farce poobah]

12 hours ago, Redneksioux said:

South Dakota now houses one of the nation's largest coronavirus hot spots

 

The CDC recommended no gatherings of 10 plus people. The SD governor touted "we are not NY" and wanted to leave the decision to the people. Now South Dakota is home to one of the largest coronavirus clusters in the United States.

"Another Dishonest Smear by the Washington Post" sums it up perfectly.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/04/another-dishonest-smear-by-the-washington-post.php

[yzerman19]

1 hour ago, Cratter said:

304 people under the age of 45 so far have died in NYC with the Coronavirus. 

When will it be okay for people under 45 in NYC to go outside and play again?

Not until Bill Gates says so

[UNDlaw80]

1 hour ago, Oxbow6 said:

Right.........because 0.0055% of all NYC residents 45 years old and younger have died from COVID. Least that's a higher percentage than have died from murder in that age range so far this year.

The issue isn't this demographic's death rate.  The issue is, given a free pass to go anywhere, younger demographics prolonging Covid's infestation and spreading it to vulnerable individuals.  Hence my comment about social responsibility; especially in NYC where hospitals, morgues, and cemeteries are overflowing with Covid dead and police, firefighters, etc. are barely hanging on.     

This isn't astrophysics. 

   

[dynato]

4 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Right.........because 0.0055% of all NYC residents 45 years old and younger have died from COVID. Least that's a higher percentage than have died from murder in that age range so far this year.

The larger threat is obviously not the younger generation dying. The threat is the younger age brackets transmitting the virus to the vulnerable population that don't have great odds of survival.

Below are the current odds in NYC, from the starting point of identifying a positive case, as of April 14th 2020:

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#download

That is 1 in 25 for ages 45-64.1 in 9 for ages 65-74, and 1 in 4 for ages 75+. Not very good odds right now.

[UNDlaw80]

 

[southpaw]

2 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:

Right.........because 0.0055% of all NYC residents 45 years old and younger have died from COVID so far.

I was curious why all of sudden you're only concerned about cases for people under 45. A couple of weeks ago, you were touting numbers for people under 65.

2 hours ago, dynato said:

Below are the current odds in NYC, from the starting point of identifying a positive case, as of April 14th 2020:

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#download

That is 1 in 25 for ages 45-64.

 

[Oxbow6]

5 hours ago, UNDlaw80 said:

The issue isn't this demographic's death rate.  The issue is, given a free pass to go anywhere, younger demographics prolonging Covid's infestation and spreading it to vulnerable individuals.  

No one said a "free pass" but obviously the NYC data is a large enough base to draw statistical data from. Can't, in NYC case, keep roughly 65% of population 45 and under locked up much past 4/30. BTW.......187M in this country fall in that age group. Again the average working person's age is 42. My point is there is enough statistical data to start looking at transitioning at least that 187M back into the economy and society. We know those who are at greatest risk. Keep them isolated and protected. There needs to be a two pronged approach moving forward as of May 1........ continue protecting those at risk while at the same time transitioning the millions at low risk back to some normalcy. 

4 hours ago, dynato said:

The larger threat is obviously not the younger generation dying. The threat is the younger age brackets transmitting the virus to the vulnerable population that don't have great odds of survival.
 

See above.

2 hours ago, southpaw said:

I was curious why all of sudden you're only concerned about cases for people under 45. A couple of weeks ago, you were touting numbers for people under 65.

Cause your sister told me my post yesterday morning from data established on 4/10 was "outdated". I'm just trying to stay current. 

 

 

I'll ask this to all three of you. Softball question........give me just 5, although there are more, just 5 causes of death in NYC that resulted in more than 304 deaths in the age group 45 and under in the past 3 months?

Seems like there are a number in this thread that see this crisis as a one trick pony and are comfortable with the current lockdown measures until fall or even through the year. PM MafiaMan and ask him how this has worked out for him and his family. 

[southpaw]

58 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

I'll ask this to all three of you. Softball question........give me just 5, although there are more, just 5 causes of death in NYC that resulted in more than 304 deaths in the age group 45 and under in the past 3 months?

Seems like there are a number in this thread that see this crisis as a one trick pony and are comfortable with the current lockdown measures until fall or even through the year. PM MafiaMan and ask him how this has worked out for him and his family. 

Here's the thing... while you may not care about deaths of people over 45 years of age, I do. Would some of the people with pre-existing conditions over 65 die in the next year? Absolutely. Would this many of them? No, so why do we only care about people under 45?

Below is one of the many posts where you said this wasn't the flu and that people under the age of 60 shouldn't be worried.  Do you believe that's still the case?

On 3/10/2020 at 11:25 PM, Oxbow6 said:

This is not the flu. 60 years and younger in good health in THIS country you're better off getting corona than the flu.

As I asked, but you didn't answer, why did you change your numbers to just people under 45? Because now, the numbers are showing that 25% of people who test positive in NYC, aged 45-64 have a 27% chance of ending up in the hospital. Could it be because someone aged 44-64 is 8 times more likely to die from Coronavirus?

Give me 1, although there are none, just 1 cause of death in NYC that has resulted in more deaths than coronavirus in the past 3 months.

Please quote where someone has said they are comfortable to keep the current lockdown measures in place until fall or through the year. There's a massive difference between that strawman and keeping the current lockdown in place for more than another week.

[UND1983]

6 hours ago, dynato said:

The larger threat is obviously not the younger generation dying. The threat is the younger age brackets transmitting the virus to the vulnerable population that don't have great odds of survival.

Below are the current odds in NYC, from the starting point of identifying a positive case, as of April 14th 2020:

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#download

That is 1 in 25 for ages 45-64.1 in 9 for ages 65-74, and 1 in 4 for ages 75+. Not very good odds right now.

Maybe the vulnerable need to be quarantined while the rest of the country moves on until a vaccine is found, etc?

[Siouxperman8]

9 minutes ago, keikla said:

You seem to have skipped over my post that noted that the hospitalization for those under 45 is not insignificant.  It isn't just about whether or not they die.  Somehow you don't seem to grasp that the healthcare systems here are barely hanging on by the tiniest of threads.

Do I want people locked in their homes forever?  No.  Do I want people to be out of jobs forever?  No.  But I also know that even the slightest percentage increase of patients, whether young or old, could very well be the crumbling of us all.  At least in NYC metro area.

I'm well aware that this isnt a one trick pony, as you can count my spouse as one of the many, many unemployed.  But it also isn't just a one trick pony only about the economy.  As I noted, I think for the sake of sanity things need to be loosened, but it needs to be done very, very slowly for the reasons stated in this post. 

Clearly I need to take a break from this thread again, as I'm beyond fed up with the overly-aggressive posts as if I'm personally responsible for MM losing his job just cause I'm (validly, as far as NYC is concerned) worried about the spread of covid.  For all of you others who choose to have normal debate and conversation, I thank you for that.

Thanks for adding your perspective.  Most, or all, of us on here really appreciate hearing your input based on your experience dealing with this thing.  

[UND1983]

18 minutes ago, keikla said:

You seem to have skipped over my post that noted that the hospitalization for those under 45 is not insignificant.  It isn't just about whether or not they die.  Somehow you don't seem to grasp that the healthcare systems here are barely hanging on by the tiniest of threads.

Do I want people locked in their homes forever?  No.  Do I want people to be out of jobs forever?  No.  But I also know that even the slightest percentage increase of patients, whether young or old, could very well be the crumbling of us all.  At least in NYC metro area.

I'm well aware that this isnt a one trick pony, as you can count my spouse as one of the many, many unemployed.  But it also isn't just a one trick pony only about the economy.  As I noted, I think for the sake of sanity things need to be loosened, but it needs to be done very, very slowly for the reasons stated in this post. 

Clearly I need to take a break from this thread again, as I'm beyond fed up with the overly-aggressive posts as if I'm personally responsible for MM losing his job just cause I'm (validly, as far as NYC is concerned) worried about the spread of covid.  For all of you others who choose to have normal debate and conversation, I thank you for that.

I also appreciate your real time feedback you give us.  I just don't like how NYC (and a few others) are the reason why the rest of the country is being essentially shutdown. Millions of people literally living on top of each other is going to lead to issues like this and could happen at any time to those citizens now and into the future.  Economic gridlock & depression every time?

[UNDBIZ]

7 hours ago, UNDlaw80 said:

The issue isn't this demographic's death rate.  The issue is, given a free pass to go anywhere, younger demographics prolonging Covid's infestation and spreading it to vulnerable individuals.  Hence my comment about social responsibility; especially in NYC where hospitals, morgues, and cemeteries are overflowing with Covid dead and police, firefighters, etc. are barely hanging on.     

This isn't astrophysics. 

Doesn't flattening the curve actually prolong the outbreak?  I'm not saying we shouldn't attempt to flatten it, but people saying we will beat this sooner by staying in aren't looking at the same charts as me.

[Oxbow6]

1 hour ago, southpaw said:

Here's the thing... while you may not care about deaths of people over 45 years of age, I do. Would some of the people with pre-existing conditions over 65 die in the next year? Absolutely. Would this many of them? No, so why do we only care about people under 45?

Below is one of the many posts where you said this wasn't the flu and that people under the age of 60 shouldn't be worried.  Do you believe that's still the case?

As I asked, but you didn't answer, why did you change your numbers to just people under 45? Because now, the numbers are showing that 25% of people who test positive in NYC, aged 45-64 have a 27% chance of ending up in the hospital. Could it be because someone aged 44-64 is 8 times more likely to die from Coronavirus?

Point 1....no. I obviously was wrong as were countless others. I guess that's the one thing Anderson Cooper and I have in common.  I do believe the mortality rate will be much lower then is being projected but higher than the flu.

 

Point 2....again based on the statistical data I don't think it is unreasonable to consider giving those 187M people 45 years and under in this COUNTRY some opportunities to move forward with some normalcy after these 45 days of federal guideline end 4/30. Of the 304 that died in NYC in that age bracket again roughly only 10% of those had no underlying contributing issues. Not every community in the nation is NYC. NYC and NY state have the option to move forward as they chose. The vast majority of this nation needs to start living again IMO.

42 minutes ago, keikla said:

You seem to have skipped over my post that noted that the hospitalization for those under 45 is not insignificant.  It isn't just about whether or not they die.  Somehow you don't seem to grasp that the healthcare systems here are barely hanging on by the tiniest of threads.

I fully get that. Trust me. I also understand that there are more healthcare systems in this country that will be in financial ruin because they are waiting for their surge that mostly likely won't happen due to wildly inaccurate projections, models and data. I have said this before unfortunately your situation and your area's situation is the most dire in the country.

[UND1983]

4 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Doesn't flattening the curve actually prolong the outbreak?  I'm not saying we shouldn't attempt to flatten it, but people saying we will beat this sooner by staying in aren't looking at the same charts as me.

It would appear so yes.  Hurt the masses to save the few.  I have also read that protecting kids from it will not help us in the future as they will not develop immunity through no exposure.  They are our next adults. The theory said it may be counterproductive to do what we did.  

[Vegas_Sioux]

17 hours ago, MafiaMan said:

I would have suggested moving the Frozen Four to Engelstad Arena.  Problem solved.  

Just because the NHL knows it’s a excellent viable option doesn’t mean the ivy towered ones in Indianapolis can see that. 

[Cratter]

"Flatten the curve" has basically now turned into stay home til the vaccine is ready.

[Oxbow6]

12 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

It would appear so yes.  Hurt the masses to save the few.  I have also read that protecting kids from it will not help us in the future as they will not develop immunity through no exposure.  They are our next adults. The theory said it may be counterproductive to do what we did.  

There are a number of "experts" that subscribe to this theory.

[UNDlaw80]

2 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:

No one said a "free pass" but obviously the NYC data is a large enough base to draw statistical data from. Can't, in NYC case, keep roughly 65% of population 45 and under locked up much past 4/30. BTW.......187M in this country fall in that age group. Again the average working person's age is 42. My point is there is enough statistical data to start looking at transitioning at least that 187M back into the economy and society. We know those who are at greatest risk. Keep them isolated and protected. There needs to be a two pronged approach moving forward as of May 1........ continue protecting those at risk while at the same time transitioning the millions at low risk back to some normalcy. 

See above.

Cause your sister told me my post yesterday morning from data established on 4/10 was "outdated". I'm just trying to stay current. 

 

 

I'll ask this to all three of you. Softball question........give me just 5, although there are more, just 5 causes of death in NYC that resulted in more than 304 deaths in the age group 45 and under in the past 3 months?

Seems like there are a number in this thread that see this crisis as a one trick pony and are comfortable with the current lockdown measures until fall or even through the year. PM MafiaMan and ask him how this has worked out for him and his family. 

We’re on the same page. ‘Opening up’ should be implemented incrementally. Our opinions just differ on timetables. Each state should make the decision for itself based on its own specific risk factors.

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, NYC is too saturated with the virus and does not have the infrastructure to ‘open up’ until Covid is somewhat manageable.  When will this occur? Who knows. That’s why Cuomo is rightfully not setting a definitive time-frame to commence opening.  Doing as such is beyond irresponsible.

That said, other states are completely different.  Some should get their butts open as soon as possible (obviously while simultaneously adhering to precautions).