While I may appear to strongly favor one thing or another, I do actually strongly that every day is a new day.

And everyone has to be willing to change their views and positions every time we get new information.

There is no room for pride and there is no room for "I told you so."

HotardAg07 said:

---

The Imperial College study forecasted that if we did nothing to prevent of this virus and let it run its course then roughly 2.2mm people would have died in the US this year. That's IN ADDITION to all the other sick people who normally die and it would cause such an overloading of the medical system that people to die who could have otherwise been saved by medical intervention. 2.2MM in a year is more people that have died in a single year for any cause in our history.

Maybe you don't believe that outcome, but our elected leaders had to make a hard decision based on the data at hand and they've elected to go this way. The way president trump was talking a week ago and is talking now shows you that he's probably seem some very dire projections that has caused a change in attitude.

I just wish people wouldn't take the fact that they dont like the impact on the economy to lessen the legitimate threat of the virus.

---

I don't think people talk economics to lessen the impact, but to point out that economics affect more than just your retirement and bank account. If the economy crashes, the medical world will be impacted, and as such people will die.

And your 2.2 million is not more than the 2.8 million that died last year. As I previously pointed out, 2.06 million of those were 65 plus, so that has to be factored in whether you like it or not.

It's true that some of the 2.06 million would die of causes other than CV, but maybe we see 1 million additional deaths from CV. Worst case.

Or maybe those 2.2 million die over a month vs a year. Yes, that's a burden, but is that worse than prolonging it over a year, and seeing additional deaths as a result of a chronically vs. acutely overburdened health system.

This is a war. Maybe we don't win. Maybe we surrender after losing 1000 troops. Or maybe we keep fighting, prolonging the inevitable, and surrender after losing 1million troops.

That's what the the author is postulating.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

While I may appear to strongly favor one thing or another, I do actually strongly that every day is a new day.

And everyone has to be willing to change their views and positions every time we get new information.

There is no room for pride and there is no room for "I told you so."

---

Agree. There are plenty of things I don't agree with that don't take much from me to do. I never wipe my equipment at the gym. I started doing that.

This whole approach is hard because I'm a risk taker, and not a germ-a-phobe. I don't get flu shots. I prefer natural solutions.

But I'm still making changes I don't agree with because they aren't hard.

The hard ones are changes that will certainly impact people's lives longer than 2 weeks or 2 months. Those are orders that I, and others, have trouble following IMO.

Quote:

---

And your 2.2 million is not more than the 2.8 million that died last year. As I previously pointed out, 2.06 million of those were 65 plus, so that has to be factored in whether you like it or not.

---

Every other sickness is still out there, killing people. It is not either/or.

Yes, some folks will have died from something else if COVID-19 didn't get to them first. Some, albeit maybe less, will die from something else because their quality of care has decreased.


To put some data behind that: https://reason.com/2020/03/17/italian-daily-death-rate-up-20-because-of-coronavirus-lombardy-up-about-80/

Italy has lost about 20% more people per day since the virus outbreak. The Lombary region has lost about 80% more people per day.

R&T: We need time to gather data.

Management: We don't have time. We have to decide now.

R&T: Buy us some time.

Management: How much?

R&T: We don't know. But we do know that cross your fingers and hope for the best is not the right answer.

Management: OK. Our people are the brightest in the world, but they are also the most stubborn...the double-edged sword of freedom.

R&T: We built an atom bomb. We'll get this done.

Management: We enacted the New Deal, desegregated Little Rock, and won the Cold War. Let's get it done.

HotardAg07 said:

---

The Imperial College study forecasted that if we did nothing to prevent of this virus and let it run its course then roughly 2.2mm people would have died in the US this year. That's IN ADDITION to all the other sick people who normally die and it would cause such an overloading of the medical system that people to die who could have otherwise been saved by medical intervention. 2.2MM in a year is more people that have died in a single year for any cause in our history.

Maybe you don't believe that outcome, but our elected leaders had to make a hard decision based on the data at hand and they've elected to go this way. The way president trump was talking a week ago and is talking now shows you that he's probably seem some very dire projections that has caused a change in attitude.

I just wish people wouldn't take the fact that they dont like the impact on the economy to lessen the legitimate threat of the virus.

---

Based on the current data showing that most deaths are in the elderly I would think that the 2.2 million would compose a significant number of patients who already had "one foot in the grave".

I would like to see more data on the patients that are dying (I.e. TBI, end stage dementia, CHF, COPD, functional status, etc). The vast majority of our patient base already has DM, HTN and CVHD and it would be nice to see what other Co morbid conditions those that are dying have.