By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

JRPGfan on 21 March 2020
Snoopy said:
JRPGfan said:


Wrong? Did you not see the graph where the vast majority of hospitalization and deaths are elders?

Picking up dead? We are going to do that regardless. Sorry, but we are going to pick up dead people no matter what the case is .  We can't stop working or else there will be no food, medecine supplies, ect which affects 100% Sorry, we have to play the percentage and not on feelings or fear.

In most cases food, medicine, go under "essentials".
Those places will still keep those running.

100% shutdown, isnt actually 100%.

Theres exceptions for stuff deemed essentials.
(atleast its that way here, but I assume its like that everywhere else too)


Yes the vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths are the elderly.
And as time goes on, more and more of the population will have gotten it and become immune, and eventually it ll be "safe" again for those groups.

However even if you dis-reguard the health of the elderly, and say "fack it" lets just let it spread, and the elderly can just stay at home.

The issue is still the same.  <-------------- key point please note.

The hospitals cannot keep up, with the amount in need of care.
Even if you keep the sick and elderly under lock & key, and somehow manage to really effectively stop spread to those groups.

The 30-60 year olds, will still be enough to overwhelm the health care systems.

Thats why they are shutting things down, they want to curve how many at treated at hospitals at once.
So it happends over a periode of time, instead of all at once.


Again, you can be 30, healthy and still be unlucky enough to need hospitalisation or a ventilator.
Even though the chances are alot smaller than if your older, its still there.
And its enough to break the health care systems around the world.



Around the Network
jason1637 on 21 March 2020
Snoopy said:
JRPGfan said:

"Subtract the elderly, infants and people with prior conditions and the percentage is a lot less."

^ wrong.

the 19% here, is refering to people that get the infection.
Virologists think perphaps upwards of 70% of a population can get it.

Out of 100 that get this, 19% are hospitalised.
And upto 70% of a population can get it.


"So healthy middle age people should be fine and go about their daily lives."

^ this will prolong the periode the elderly will have to stay home at lock down.
And it will continue to spread, until ~70% of the population has it.

Alot of elderly that wouldnt need to get sick, will.
They will take some unnessary risk, or get it from just getting foods ect.
Its alot more risky (for the risk groups) than just haveing everyone quarantined, and stopping spreads early.


"However, let's stop the economy completely which affects 100% of the population and will lead to the great depression. "

The alternative, is to hire people to go pick up corpses instead.
You want a job picking up the dead? your plan could lead to there being a few million more.

Wrong? Did you not see the graph where the vast majority of hospitalization and deaths are elders?

Picking up dead? We are going to do that regardless. Sorry, but we are going to pick up dead people no matter what the case is .  We can't stop working or else there will be no food, medecine supplies, ect which affects 100% Sorry, we have to play the percentage and not on feelings or fear.

But there are lots of young people being hospitalized. In places like Italy 50% hospitalized are under 50. 55% hospitalized in NYS are 18-49.

With a 15-20% hospitalized rate in the US and only 550k hospital beds a lot of people womt get proper treatment and will die due tonour health care system being overwhelmed. 



jason1637 on 21 March 2020

Also snoopy most Americans have pre existing conditions regardless of age. Just look at our obesity rate.



Snoopy on 21 March 2020
jason1637 said:
Snoopy said:

Wrong? Did you not see the graph where the vast majority of hospitalization and deaths are elders?

Picking up dead? We are going to do that regardless. Sorry, but we are going to pick up dead people no matter what the case is .  We can't stop working or else there will be no food, medecine supplies, ect which affects 100% Sorry, we have to play the percentage and not on feelings or fear.

But there are lots of young people being hospitalized. In places like Italy 50% hospitalized are under 50. 55% hospitalized in NYS are 18-49.

With a 15-20% hospitalized rate in the US and only 550k hospital beds a lot of people womt get proper treatment and will die due tonour health care system being overwhelmed. 

The mortality rate at worse case scenario is less than 3% and it affects the elderly the most. You know what will cause us to die? Lack of proper shelter, food, medecine, ect which is all being affected because we aren't getting back to work and producing or providing service. Also, if there is no work, then there is no money to be spent. How are we supposed to afford those critical products/services? There is no such thing as a free lunch as you know and nobody is going to keep working if they aren't getting paid. 

Last edited by Snoopy - on 21 March 2020

Snoopy on 21 March 2020
jason1637 said:
Also snoopy most Americans have pre existing conditions regardless of age. Just look at our obesity rate.

Depends on how we measure obesity. BMI isn't exactly tell all end all. I'm technically obese, but compare to most people in United States or other countries, I'm pretty normal.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 on 21 March 2020
Snoopy said:
JRPGfan said:

You realise that 30-50 year olds also contract this virus, and require intensive care + respirators right?

Even healthy 30-50 year olds, that make up a majority of the workforce, could spread this, and end up requireing hospitalisation.

Here comes the problem Snoopy.

If you do that, soon 70-80% of the entire population will have this virus.
Once that happends the health care system cannot deal with so many infected and requireing aid.


Theres 328million in the USA.
if 70% of everyone gets it lets say within the next 2-3 months, because people are going "back to the normal lives" instead, then theres going to be a need for 46 million sick beds.

The USA doesnt have that many (sickbeds, air-tanks, ventilators ect).
Do you want the sick and dieing to lay outsides on the streets? dieing there, or back in their own homes?

The damage to lives of the population would be massive, in a country that took that option.

"More than 2-3% of our lives are going to be affected if we don't start working and keep the economy going."

Even if you assumed NO ONE died from this, if you just let it spread rampant.
There would still be like ~20% that got so sick, they had to spend a week or more in bed.

This virus is gonna effect way more than just 2-3% of people's lives, even if you just ignore it and went back to work as normal.

Imagine haveing like ~50million people so sick, they cant get out of bed.
The majority of the rest, would be walking around with running noses/caughing and feeling weak ect.

It would be a odd new reality.... the death rates would be crazy, but a month lateron, everyone would probably be immune to futher infections.
You would have a entire country basically back on its feet, working as normal.... in the wake of millions and millions dieing.

Most people who get the flu won't need a sick bed or a respirator. Only people who needs it will be the elderly or people with weak immune system. I actually got the flu earlier this year and I just stayed home for about a week and I was fine just like most people.  Also, most people who are dying are the elderly and infants who should stay home like I said before.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/

Younger persons don't die so long as there are enough medical supplies. But I've seen persons in their 20's on ventilators due to Coronavirus, as it can become severe enough for any age group to be needing these.

The difference between a teen with a ventilator and an elderly person with it is that an elderly person would be hit so hard that even with the ventilator, his chances would be slim while for the tween, the ventilator ensures his survival.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 21 March 2020

The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/

jason1637 on 21 March 2020
Snoopy said:
jason1637 said:

But there are lots of young people being hospitalized. In places like Italy 50% hospitalized are under 50. 55% hospitalized in NYS are 18-49.

With a 15-20% hospitalized rate in the US and only 550k hospital beds a lot of people womt get proper treatment and will die due tonour health care system being overwhelmed. 

The mortality rate at worse case scenario is less than 3% and it affects elder people the most. You know what will cause us to die? Lack of proper shelter, food, medecine, ect which is all being affected because we aren't getting back to work and producing or providing service. Also, if there is no work, then there is no money to be spent. How are we supposed to afford those critical products/services? There is no such thing as a free lunch as you know and nobody is going to keep working if they aren't getting paid. 

Thats the morality rate at oyr current compacity.

If 100 people are infected and a mortality is 3% then 3 people would die but lets say 20 people need to be hospitalized but there are only 8 hospital beds. If half of those who cant get hospitalized die the rate becomes 9% (6+9). Imagine these numbers translating to the US population of hundreds of millions of people it looks bad.

As for being able to afford resources the federal government has passed laws that allow people not working to be paid until this is over and for people being layed off are getting a 1.2k per month basic income.



Snoopy on 21 March 2020
John2290 said:
Snoopy said:

The mortality rate at worse case scenario is less than 3% and it affects the elderly the most. You know what will cause us to die? Lack of proper shelter, food, medecine, ect which is all being affected because we aren't getting back to work and producing or providing service. Also, if there is no work, then there is no money to be spent. How are we supposed to afford those critical products/services? There is no such thing as a free lunch as you know and nobody is going to keep working if they aren't getting paid. 

That's not the worst case scenario. That is the worst case scenario where we had unlimited medical staff, space and equipment. The worst case scenarios are, much, much worse because we can't grow docrors and nurses on trees. 

Or worse case scenario is there is no doctors or supplies at all because the economy collapses and there is no way to produce supplies or pay for the doctors.



rapsuperstar31 on 21 March 2020
Snoopy said:
JRPGfan said:

"Subtract the elderly, infants and people with prior conditions and the percentage is a lot less."

^ wrong.

the 19% here, is refering to people that get the infection.
Virologists think perphaps upwards of 70% of a population can get it.

Out of 100 that get this, 19% are hospitalised.
And upto 70% of a population can get it.


"So healthy middle age people should be fine and go about their daily lives."

^ this will prolong the periode the elderly will have to stay home at lock down.
And it will continue to spread, until ~70% of the population has it.

Alot of elderly that wouldnt need to get sick, will.
They will take some unnessary risk, or get it from just getting foods ect.
Its alot more risky (for the risk groups) than just haveing everyone quarantined, and stopping spreads early.


"However, let's stop the economy completely which affects 100% of the population and will lead to the great depression. "

The alternative, is to hire people to go pick up corpses instead.
You want a job picking up the dead? your plan could lead to there being a few million more.

Wrong? Did you not see the graph where the vast majority of hospitalization and deaths are elders?

Picking up dead? We are going to do that regardless. Sorry, but we are going to pick up dead people no matter what the case is .  We can't stop working or else there will be no food, medecine supplies, ect which affects 100% Sorry, we have to play the percentage and not on feelings or fear.

Snoopy you are entitled to your opinion.  You will not be able to convince anyone on the opposite side differently, and we will not be able to convince you differently.  All we can do is let this play out because there is no going back from the decisions that have been made and will be made, and pray that the worst case scenarios does not occur. 



Snoopy on 21 March 2020
jason1637 said:
Snoopy said:

The mortality rate at worse case scenario is less than 3% and it affects elder people the most. You know what will cause us to die? Lack of proper shelter, food, medecine, ect which is all being affected because we aren't getting back to work and producing or providing service. Also, if there is no work, then there is no money to be spent. How are we supposed to afford those critical products/services? There is no such thing as a free lunch as you know and nobody is going to keep working if they aren't getting paid. 

Thats the morality rate at oyr current compacity.

If 100 people are infected and a mortality is 3% then 3 people would die but lets say 20 people need to be hospitalized but there are only 8 hospital beds. If half of those who cant get hospitalized die the rate becomes 9% (6+9). Imagine these numbers translating to the US population of hundreds of millions of people it looks bad.

As for being able to afford resources the federal government has passed laws that allow people not working to be paid until this is over and for people being layed off are getting a 1.2k per month basic income.

1.2k a month... LOL you can't afford rent in my area with that money and it is obvious that isn't sustainable for the long run and nor can it be done until the virus vaccine is found and mass produced.