Letter to the Editor-LA Times

[Bryce]

WHO also predicts almost three quarter of a million deaths due to malaria because of coronavirus measures...




Hong Kong Flu...

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that in total, the virus killed one million people worldwide,[14] from its beginning in July 1968 until the outbreak faded during the winter of 1969-70.[15] The CDC estimated that about 100,000 people died in the U.S; most excess deaths were in those 65 and older.

In comparison to other pandemics of the 20th century, the Hong Kong flu yielded a low death rate.[7] The disease was allowed to spread through the population without restrictions on economic activity.

This is how they practiced social distancing in the middle of the Hong Kong Flu Pandemic,,,

August 15, 1969

[TC Talks]

And yet we have over 80,000 people dead in under 2 months in our country with this particular pandemic. You continue to compare covid to other situations that are not relevant because of the nature of the virus. It's like refusing to provide safety equipment while working on 440 volt service by suggesting that other people have been shocked by 110 volts and lived.

[Bryce]

And yet we have over 80,000 people dead in under 2 months in our country with this particular pandemic.

A couple of points. One, it's been longer than two months. Two, that 80,000 number is people that died WITH Covid-19 not necessarily FROM Covid-19. Three, 35% of Covid-19 deaths have occurred in one state. Why take a axe to the patient when a scalpel will work?

[bmw]

Worldwide I might believe... but just Americans? Tens to Hundreds of millions? There are only 330 million... so now you’re saying between 10 and 33% of the population will die due to social side effects? Now you’re simply smoking something good...

Sorry for any confusion - I was specifically referring to number of worldwide deaths. When I said "the economy," I should have said "the world economy."

Remember, "flattening the curve" wasn't a strategy intended to reduce the FINAL number of people who got infected; rather, it was designed only to lengthen the amount of time it took for the virus to run its course so as to keep the hospitals from overflowing. Ultimately, the only lives lockdown really saves are the ones who in theory wouldn't get adequate hospital care if the hospitals were overflowing (ie, the final infection numbers would be the same, but the mortality rate would be higher if hospitals overflowed).

Because hospitals were never overrun (except for in a few countries like in Italy for a short time), and further because most countries are past or even well past their curve's peak, I believe we are doing far more damage in the long run by staying locked down than if we just opened everything back up and allow the world to get one step closer to herd immunity. Again, if a vaccine were weeks or a few months away, then the optimal strategy would be different. But it is still much further out than that.

[TC Talks]

And yet we have over 80,000 people dead in under 2 months in our country with this particular pandemic.

A couple of points. One, it's been longer than two months. Two, that 80,000 number is people that died WITH Covid-19 not necessarily FROM Covid-19. Three, 35% of Covid-19 deaths have occurred in one state. Why take a axe to the patient when a scalpel will work?

You happen to live in the state with the fourth most number of deaths. Here's a better idea move somewhere where the restrictions are lower.

[Bryce]

And yet we have over 80,000 people dead in under 2 months in our country with this particular pandemic.

A couple of points. One, it's been longer than two months. Two, that 80,000 number is people that died WITH Covid-19 not necessarily FROM Covid-19. Three, 35% of Covid-19 deaths have occurred in one state. Why take a axe to the patient when a scalpel will work?

You happen to live in the state with the fourth most number of deaths. Here's a better idea move somewhere where the restrictions are lower.

Why should I. This again is a perfect example of where an axe is being used instead of a scalpel.

To date, there have been 4,825 deaths attributed to Covid-19 in Michigan. A whopping 65% of those deaths occurred in Wayne and Oakland counties. This leaves a total of 1,700 Covid-19 related deaths in the rest of the state. Of those 1,700 deaths outside of Wayne and Oakland Counties, only 85 cases in which Covid-19 was listed as contributing to death were in people under the age of 50 and each of those people had other underlying issues.

So, if I'm over fifty years of age with other health issues, I should probably not go to a baseball game and maybe even get someone to do my grocery shopping. If I'm 25 and in good health, don't reside in Wayne or Oakland Counties, my chances of death from Covid-19 is about the same as getting struck by lightening while playing golf.

We need to keep the entire state shut down why?

[km1125]

Worldwide I might believe... but just Americans? Tens to Hundreds of millions? There are only 330 million... so now you’re saying between 10 and 33% of the population will die due to social side effects? Now you’re simply smoking something good...

Sorry for any confusion - I was specifically referring to number of worldwide deaths. When I said "the economy," I should have said "the world economy."

Remember, "flattening the curve" wasn't a strategy intended to reduce the FINAL number of people who got infected; rather, it was designed only to lengthen the amount of time it took for the virus to run its course so as to keep the hospitals from overflowing. Ultimately, the only lives lockdown really saves are the ones who in theory wouldn't get adequate hospital care if the hospitals were overflowing (ie, the final infection numbers would be the same, but the mortality rate would be higher if hospitals overflowed).

Because hospitals were never overrun (except for in a few countries like in Italy for a short time), and further because most countries are past or even well past their curve's peak, I believe we are doing far more damage in the long run by staying locked down than if we just opened everything back up and allow the world to get one step closer to herd immunity. Again, if a vaccine were weeks or a few months away, then the optimal strategy would be different. But it is still much further out than that.

To be fair, "flattening the curve" should have also allowed the medical community to devise better treatments for the critically ill, and identify those most at risk from progressing from mild conditions to severe, thus saving more lives. However, I don't think we really made much progress there, aside from identifying that ventilators weren't the promising treatment they were initially described as.

Otherwise, I agree 100%

[km1125]

Worldwide I might believe... but just Americans? Tens to Hundreds of millions? There are only 330 million... so now you’re saying between 10 and 33% of the population will die due to social side effects? Now you’re simply smoking something good...

Sorry for any confusion - I was specifically referring to number of worldwide deaths. When I said "the economy," I should have said "the world economy."

Remember, "flattening the curve" wasn't a strategy intended to reduce the FINAL number of people who got infected; rather, it was designed only to lengthen the amount of time it took for the virus to run its course so as to keep the hospitals from overflowing. Ultimately, the only lives lockdown really saves are the ones who in theory wouldn't get adequate hospital care if the hospitals were overflowing (ie, the final infection numbers would be the same, but the mortality rate would be higher if hospitals overflowed).

Because hospitals were never overrun (except for in a few countries like in Italy for a short time), and further because most countries are past or even well past their curve's peak, I believe we are doing far more damage in the long run by staying locked down than if we just opened everything back up and allow the world to get one step closer to herd immunity. Again, if a vaccine were weeks or a few months away, then the optimal strategy would be different. But it is still much further out than that.

To be fair, "flattening the curve" should have also allowed the medical community to devise better treatments for the critically ill, and identify those most at risk from progressing from mild conditions to severe, thus saving more lives. However, I don't think we really made much progress there, aside from identifying that ventilators weren't the promising treatment they were initially described as.

Otherwise, I agree 100%

Michigan has one of the worst (or the worst depending how it's measured) fatality rates. The Governor really should be getting answers on that anomaly from her medical staff.