Palovic said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

What percentage of America has at least 1 underlying health condition?

Again, just because people with underlying health conditions are more likely to die, doesn't make the deaths less relevant

---

A great question and I have yet to find that study/data published, but there is a reason that every warning related to CV-19 has an emphasis on those with pre-existing conditions and the risks/threats it poses to them.

The deaths are no less relevant but I do not recall anyone banging the table in April of last year saying that we are averaging 7700 deaths per day in the US and this is an absolute shock and everyone should be concerned.

---

Some deaths are an inevitable result of society moving forward. In many ways, these cause less deaths (see life expectancy vs GDP over the past 6 or 7 centuries). Death that is inevitable in the system so that the collective can have a higher quality of ljfe and longer life (and mind you we actively try to lower the people that die so that society can function every day) are a completely different topic than a novel virus with the capability of killing millions of people and overrun the healthcare system. There are no positive impacts assocaited with this virus. They are completely different causes of death, and should be treated as such. Maybe that level of nuance is lost on you...

What you're doing is similar to an accountant failing to see the difference between opex and discretionary capex. "It's all just dollars out the door. I don't see why my company didn't care about spending $1MM in fixed operating costs making sure the underlying business can function, but is cutting discretionary capex by $500K".

Hogties said:

---

Palovic said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

What percentage of America has at least 1 underlying health condition?

Again, just because people with underlying health conditions are more likely to die, doesn't make the deaths less relevant

---

A great question and I have yet to find that study/data published, but there is a reason that every warning related to CV-19 has an emphasis on those with pre-existing conditions and the risks/threats it poses to them.

The deaths are no less relevant but I do not recall anyone banging the table in April of last year saying that we are averaging 7700 deaths per day in the US and this is an absolute shock and everyone should be concerned.

---

After a 5 second google search, your answer to how many Americans have an underlying chronic health condition, 78% Of people over 55.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/health_policy/adult_chronic_conditions.htm

This isn't hard

---

The question pertained to the 4000 CV-19 deaths in March and how many had underlying conditions.

Thank you for your 5 second contribution nonetheless... Take a few more seconds to read the content and we will make some progress on this forum

I hear your points and I am only presenting the data as it pertains in relative terms to current mortality rates and potential delta of CV-19 to that data.

If you want to get into a contest of diminishing people with unrelated scenarios, I am sure we can go round and round with jabs as it pertains to many subjects I can attempt to classify your knowledge and lack thereof into a scenario. We will both end up in the same place as we were at the start of our discussion except more foolish.

I only posted my comments to provide a perspective with statistics of US disease related mortality. People then took offense that I was not as alarmed as they were to the risk CV-19 presents for some reason. I never stated it was not a risk nor would I advise people not to be mindful of what their doctors are advising them.

This is a quote from Dr. Fauci yesterday:

Quote:

---

And again, I know my modeling colleagues are going to not be happy with me, but models are as good as the assumptions you put into them. And as we get more data, then you put it in and that might change. So even though it says according to the model which is a good model that we're dealing with, this is full mitigation. As we get more data, as the weeks go by, that could be modified.

---

You can only model based on best available data. There are gaps in what we know right now. The number may wind up being a lot more or a lot less, and it will get adjusted as we learn more. Many people will then say "oh he was wrong!", when he's only basing that number off of best available data at this time.

Seven Costanza said:

---

This is a quote from Dr. Fauci yesterday:

Quote:

---

And again, I know my modeling colleagues are going to not be happy with me, but models are as good as the assumptions you put into them. And as we get more data, then you put it in and that might change. So even though it says according to the model which is a good model that we're dealing with, this is full mitigation. As we get more data, as the weeks go by, that could be modified.

---

You can only model based on best available data. There are gaps in what we know right now. The number may wind up being a lot more or a lot less, and it will get adjusted as we learn more. Many people will then say "oh he was wrong!", when he's only basing that number off of best available data at this time.

---

Agreed. The data will continue to change and we have no idea where April will take us but we need to be cognizant of the threat and od our best to slow the spread until resources can catch up

Yet you shut an economy down knowing you didn't have the best data for the model. The doomdayers win the emotional battle every time.

The economy was going to be ****ed because of this regardless of what we did.