Look, as stated before there are always exceptions. The point is, the chance of dying at that age is so negligible you pretty much have a better chance of dying of anything other than COVID-19 on a daily basis. Imagine if this was a disease that actually targeting kids at a higher I wonder what are response would be. Instead we've essentially locked down everyone for no good reason. Look at death rates as % per age group and we should make policy off of that.
94 percent of patients had more than one disease other than COVID-19
13,526 Views |
181 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Irwin M. Fletcher
My calling out our mortality isn't fear mongering. So who's projecting here? I obviously riled some people up. I'll quit here to keep this thread from turing into F16.brownbrick said:If it's real provide some/any evidence. My calling out your unqualified opinion isn't "insulating myself." You just might be projecting there.Carolin_Gallego said:Realism is fear mongering? Please. We all have a little rust. I suggest using the ignore feature if you want to insulate yourself.brownbrick said:Link please to your/any basis for the 99.9%? Get this type of personal opinion driven fear mongering out of here.Carolin_Gallego said:
Nearly half of all Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease.
What percentage of the population has one or more disease at any given moment? My bet would be 99.9%.
Yes, but again, it also says SERIOUS underlying conditions. How does one measure that for some of these? I'm supposed to stay home until phase 3 because of well controlled, minor asthma? No thanks.
You're getting called out because you made up a stat, and someone else is asking for evidence of said stat. That isn't unreasonable.Carolin_Gallego said:My calling out our mortality isn't fear mongering. So who's projecting here? I obviously riled some people up. I'll quit here to keep this thread from turing into F16.brownbrick said:If it's real provide some/any evidence. My calling out your unqualified opinion isn't "insulating myself." You just might be projecting there.Carolin_Gallego said:Realism is fear mongering? Please. We all have a little rust. I suggest using the ignore feature if you want to insulate yourself.brownbrick said:Link please to your/any basis for the 99.9%? Get this type of personal opinion driven fear mongering out of here.Carolin_Gallego said:
Nearly half of all Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease.
What percentage of the population has one or more disease at any given moment? My bet would be 99.9%.
HotardAg07 said:
You can find this all on CDC's website.
Here is how the White House defines Vunerable Individuals, who should stay home until Phase 3:Quote:
1. Elderly individuals.
2. Individuals with serious underlying health conditions, including high blood pressure, chronic lung disease, diabetes, obesity, asthma, and those whose immune system is compromised such as by chemotherapy for cancer and other conditions requiring such therapy.
- Elderly (>65) - 16%
- High blood pressure - "Percent of adults aged 20 and over with hypertension (measured high blood pressure and/or taking antihypertensive medication): 33.2% (2015-2016)"
- Chronic Lung Disease - "Almost 15.7 million Americans (6.4%) reported that they have been diagnosed with COPD. More than 50% of adults with low pulmonary function were not aware that they had COPD, so the actual number may be higher. "
- Diabetes - "Percent with diabetes (physician-diagnosed or undiagnosed): 15%"
- Obesity - "Percent of adults aged 20 and over with obesity: 39.8% Percent of adults aged 20 and over with overweight, including obesity: 71.6%"
- Asthma - 7.7% of adults
- Immune System Compromised such as by chemotherapy for cancer... - I couldn't find such a stat but "Percent of adults who have ever been diagnosed with cancer: 9.4%"
You take all that together, a large percentage of us are sick in one way or another in this country. This page from the CDC shows 60% of all adults have at least one chronic disease, 40% have at least 2.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm
I'm guessing a lot of these people have multiple issues listed above.
But the subject of this thread is that 96% of people had at least one underlying disease. I think it's worth mentioning that 60% of all adults in the US have at least one underlying disease. I mention this because people use this type of stat to show that the majority of us are not at risk, only a small minority, when in fact that's not actually true.
Let's see it for under 50. 50 really seems to be the demarcation line.BlackGoldAg2011 said:
under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.
What subset of that 60% is caused by lifestyle choices?HotardAg07 said:
But the subject of this thread is that 96% of people had at least one underlying disease. I think it's worth mentioning that 60% of all adults in the US have at least one underlying disease. I mention this because people use this type of stat to show that the majority of us are not at risk, only a small minority, when in fact that's not actually true.
I don't think anyone on this thread was saying groups of people "aren't at risk."
Across all co-morbities, age is the number 1 factor. Why? Because as we age our bodies become less able to repair and heal themselves and these other factors begin to add up. Beerman isn't saying young people have zero risk. He's only stated that policy can't be made based on outliers in the data.
I don't think there is really any disagreement with that statement.
Across all co-morbities, age is the number 1 factor. Why? Because as we age our bodies become less able to repair and heal themselves and these other factors begin to add up. Beerman isn't saying young people have zero risk. He's only stated that policy can't be made based on outliers in the data.
I don't think there is really any disagreement with that statement.
A reasonable person would identify that I provided one stat with a supporting link. Unreasonable people have become usettled by an educated, reasonable guess and have derailed a thread.fig96 said:You're getting called out because you made up a stat, and someone else is asking for evidence of said stat. That isn't unreasonable.Carolin_Gallego said:My calling out our mortality isn't fear mongering. So who's projecting here? I obviously riled some people up. I'll quit here to keep this thread from turing into F16.brownbrick said:If it's real provide some/any evidence. My calling out your unqualified opinion isn't "insulating myself." You just might be projecting there.Carolin_Gallego said:Realism is fear mongering? Please. We all have a little rust. I suggest using the ignore feature if you want to insulate yourself.brownbrick said:Link please to your/any basis for the 99.9%? Get this type of personal opinion driven fear mongering out of here.Carolin_Gallego said:
Nearly half of all Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease.
What percentage of the population has one or more disease at any given moment? My bet would be 99.9%.
Yes, I agree, which is why I'd like to see some of these studies with a little more information. Slightly obese meaning 5-10 208 pounds? Or morbidly obese meaning 5-10 270 pounds. Minor asthma that rarely ever flares up and hasn't been strong enough to hospitalize you in 18 years, or someone who has to take a daily inhaler just to function normally? 125 over 85 blood pressure? Or does it need to be 150 over 95?
That's why I agree that these are a little misleading. I'd like to know more to make a conclusion.
That's why I agree that these are a little misleading. I'd like to know more to make a conclusion.
92% of all deaths according to the CDC are over the age of 55.
97% of deaths over over the age of 45.
97% of deaths over over the age of 45.
I would also like to know more. Like you, I had childhood asthma that I haven't had to treat but maybe a handful of times in the last decade. But if a doctor specifically gave me a checkbox to fill in on whether I had asthma, I guess I would have to check yes.
I don't see anyone particularly unsettled.Carolin_Gallego said:A reasonable person would identify that I provided one stat with a supporting link. Unreasonable people have become usettled by an educated, resonable guess.fig96 said:You're getting called out because you made up a stat, and someone else is asking for evidence of said stat. That isn't unreasonable.Carolin_Gallego said:My calling out our mortality isn't fear mongering. So who's projecting here? I obviously riled some people up. I'll quit here to keep this thread from turing into F16.brownbrick said:If it's real provide some/any evidence. My calling out your unqualified opinion isn't "insulating myself." You just might be projecting there.Carolin_Gallego said:Realism is fear mongering? Please. We all have a little rust. I suggest using the ignore feature if you want to insulate yourself.brownbrick said:Link please to your/any basis for the 99.9%? Get this type of personal opinion driven fear mongering out of here.Carolin_Gallego said:
Nearly half of all Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease.
What percentage of the population has one or more disease at any given moment? My bet would be 99.9%.
Several reasonable people are questioning your second stat, double the number of the first, which you continue to avoid quantifying. It is not an educated, reasonable guess, it's a total conjecture with zero evidence.
You're derailing a thread over it. And you can't acknowlege, understand or comprehend that the second wasn't a 'stat'. Seems pretty unsettled to me.fig96 said:I don't see anyone particularly unsettled.Carolin_Gallego said:A reasonable person would identify that I provided one stat with a supporting link. Unreasonable people have become usettled by an educated, resonable guess.fig96 said:You're getting called out because you made up a stat, and someone else is asking for evidence of said stat. That isn't unreasonable.Carolin_Gallego said:My calling out our mortality isn't fear mongering. So who's projecting here? I obviously riled some people up. I'll quit here to keep this thread from turing into F16.brownbrick said:If it's real provide some/any evidence. My calling out your unqualified opinion isn't "insulating myself." You just might be projecting there.Carolin_Gallego said:Realism is fear mongering? Please. We all have a little rust. I suggest using the ignore feature if you want to insulate yourself.brownbrick said:Link please to your/any basis for the 99.9%? Get this type of personal opinion driven fear mongering out of here.Carolin_Gallego said:
Nearly half of all Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease.
What percentage of the population has one or more disease at any given moment? My bet would be 99.9%.
Several reasonable people are questioning your second stat, double the number of the first, which you continue to avoid quantifying. It is not an educated, reasonable guess, it's a total conjecture with zero evidence.
BlackGoldAg2011 said:
under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.
How many people represented on the COVID bar were likely to be represented on another bar in the near future?
BlackGoldAg2011 said:
under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.
Would this not then justify a proportionate response to better address safety/accidents?
Stay Home Stay Safe to prevent traffic accidents. If it saves just one life it's worth it.
I have a very accurate stat. 100% of all humans will eventually die, and the way to eternal life is by knowing Jesus Christ as your Saviour.
I don't especially care either way, I just thought the other poster had a fair point.Carolin_Gallego said:You're derailing a thread over it. Seems pretty unsettled to me.fig96 said:I don't see anyone particularly unsettled.Carolin_Gallego said:A reasonable person would identify that I provided one stat with a supporting link. Unreasonable people have become usettled by an educated, resonable guess.fig96 said:You're getting called out because you made up a stat, and someone else is asking for evidence of said stat. That isn't unreasonable.Carolin_Gallego said:My calling out our mortality isn't fear mongering. So who's projecting here? I obviously riled some people up. I'll quit here to keep this thread from turing into F16.brownbrick said:If it's real provide some/any evidence. My calling out your unqualified opinion isn't "insulating myself." You just might be projecting there.Carolin_Gallego said:Realism is fear mongering? Please. We all have a little rust. I suggest using the ignore feature if you want to insulate yourself.brownbrick said:Link please to your/any basis for the 99.9%? Get this type of personal opinion driven fear mongering out of here.Carolin_Gallego said:
Nearly half of all Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease.
What percentage of the population has one or more disease at any given moment? My bet would be 99.9%.
Several reasonable people are questioning your second stat, double the number of the first, which you continue to avoid quantifying. It is not an educated, reasonable guess, it's a total conjecture with zero evidence.
But I am derailing so I'll let it go, your non-point isn't worth the time.
AggieAuditor said:bay fan said:I'll be sure to tell that to my friend whose healthy, marathon running, 29 year old nurse daughter died of it. I am sure she will feel better knowing it's just bad luck.Joe Exotic said:
I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.
And this right here is where the conversation always has to end. No matter how rare of an occurrence, ignore the big picture and shut it all down until a 100% guaranteed, proven vaccine comes out.
Nonsense. That is no way to run a society
Like. for example, entire industries dedicated to physical therapy, senior care, products and facilities for seniors, and government departments who monitor safety and accidents and implement public policies related to them? Yeah, someone should do that.chimpanzee said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:
under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.
Would this not then justify a proportionate response to better address safety/accidents?
Your sarcasm meter isn't functioning this morningwho?mikejones said:AggieAuditor said:bay fan said:I'll be sure to tell that to my friend whose healthy, marathon running, 29 year old nurse daughter died of it. I am sure she will feel better knowing it's just bad luck.Joe Exotic said:
I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.
And this right here is where the conversation always has to end. No matter how rare of an occurrence, ignore the big picture and shut it all down until a 100% guaranteed, proven vaccine comes out.
Nonsense. That is no way to run a society
I had a fair point too, which you don't have to agree with, but you're being too obtuse and confrontational to acknowledge it. Just another day on the internets.fig96 said:I don't especially care either way, I just thought the other poster had a fair point.Carolin_Gallego said:You're derailing a thread over it. Seems pretty unsettled to me.fig96 said:I don't see anyone particularly unsettled.Carolin_Gallego said:A reasonable person would identify that I provided one stat with a supporting link. Unreasonable people have become usettled by an educated, resonable guess.fig96 said:You're getting called out because you made up a stat, and someone else is asking for evidence of said stat. That isn't unreasonable.Carolin_Gallego said:My calling out our mortality isn't fear mongering. So who's projecting here? I obviously riled some people up. I'll quit here to keep this thread from turing into F16.brownbrick said:If it's real provide some/any evidence. My calling out your unqualified opinion isn't "insulating myself." You just might be projecting there.Carolin_Gallego said:Realism is fear mongering? Please. We all have a little rust. I suggest using the ignore feature if you want to insulate yourself.brownbrick said:Link please to your/any basis for the 99.9%? Get this type of personal opinion driven fear mongering out of here.Carolin_Gallego said:
Nearly half of all Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease.
What percentage of the population has one or more disease at any given moment? My bet would be 99.9%.
Several reasonable people are questioning your second stat, double the number of the first, which you continue to avoid quantifying. It is not an educated, reasonable guess, it's a total conjecture with zero evidence.
But I am derailing so I'll let it go, your non-point isn't worth the time.
SkiMo said:Your sarcasm meter isn't functioning this morningwho?mikejones said:AggieAuditor said:bay fan said:I'll be sure to tell that to my friend whose healthy, marathon running, 29 year old nurse daughter died of it. I am sure she will feel better knowing it's just bad luck.Joe Exotic said:
I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.
And this right here is where the conversation always has to end. No matter how rare of an occurrence, ignore the big picture and shut it all down until a 100% guaranteed, proven vaccine comes out.
Nonsense. That is no way to run a society
Hard to tell these days
A completely fair pointwho?mikejones said:SkiMo said:Your sarcasm meter isn't functioning this morningwho?mikejones said:AggieAuditor said:bay fan said:I'll be sure to tell that to my friend whose healthy, marathon running, 29 year old nurse daughter died of it. I am sure she will feel better knowing it's just bad luck.Joe Exotic said:
I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.
And this right here is where the conversation always has to end. No matter how rare of an occurrence, ignore the big picture and shut it all down until a 100% guaranteed, proven vaccine comes out.
Nonsense. That is no way to run a society
Hard to tell these days
You made up a ridiculous stat. It's not a fair point. A fair point would be saying the virus poses very little threat to healthy people.
It wasn't a stat.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
i can't do under 50 because the CDC has COVID broken down into 10 year age brackets but here is under 55 and under 45The_Fox said:Let's see it for under 50. 50 really seems to be the demarcation line.BlackGoldAg2011 said:
under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.
so as you lower the age it does drop, but still would qualify as a ranked cause of death against annual totals of other causes. for a fun look, here is the rankings if you took the other cause of death annual averages and projected them over the same 77 days that COVID has been killing
Was she treating COVID patients? There's pretty strong speculation that an increased viral load is causing some of these younger deaths in HCW.bay fan said:I'll be sure to tell that to my friend whose healthy, marathon running, 29 year old nurse daughter died of it. I am sure she will feel better knowing it's just bad luck.Joe Exotic said:
I think the cold hard reality is that this disease is relatively harmless for healthy people under 65.
This is horrible and tragic, it shakes me to my bones because that is way too young. I hope your friend is able to find some peace.
This is going to go on forever if you have people thinking like that. People die everyday of different causes. It happens. But when one young person dies of this we freak out? Why because it's planted in our face at every news outlet just to scare people when the real numbers show a fatality rate of people under 50 to be ~.05, and remember that's a huge age group and very low. Why does no one on here care about the children who committed suicide with bad mental health DUE to the LOCKDOWN? Why does no one bat an eye when the flu claims a lot kids every year under 10 and this has killed less than you can count on your hands? Stop having tunnel vision!
that is a question that is literally impossible to answer right now without the ability to predict the future. you may be able to get a sense for this in the future by doing a detailed look at death rates for various causes over the next few years in areas that were hit hard by COVID. But best case scenario we are several years from having a clue about being able to answer this question.GAC06 said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:
under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.
How many people represented on the COVID bar were likely to be represented on another bar in the near future?
Lot of projections involved here, but super interesting to see it compared across categories like this.
BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can't do under 50 because the CDC has COVID broken down into 10 year age brackets but here is under 55 and under 45The_Fox said:Let's see it for under 50. 50 really seems to be the demarcation line.BlackGoldAg2011 said:
under 65 it would still be ranked as #10 leading cause of death when compared to annual totals for the last 10 years. and that's with less than 3 months since the first confirmed death in our country.
so as you lower the age it does drop, but still would qualify as a ranked cause of death against annual totals of other causes. for a fun look, here is the rankings if you took the other cause of death annual averages and projected them over the same 77 days that COVID has been killing
So for young people, it's similar to flu deaths, which are already largely confined to a specific season.
This is the biggie (no pun intended) in terms of numbers in the high-risk population. Yes many have HBP (especially men, right?), respiratory issues and compromised immune systems but those numbers pale in comparison to the population with weight issues. And a BMI of 25 is a lot different than a BMI of 35. I would say generally you're could very well be considered 'healthy' nowadays with a BMI of 30. Often the sickest people you'll encounter have BMIs under 20; they are underweight because they are sick.H said:
- Obesity - "Percent of adults aged 20 and over with obesity: 39.8% Percent of adults aged 20 and over with overweight, including obesity: 71.6%"
Being overweight may be contribution factor but to suggest that everyone in the US is at risk for dying from COVID because we're fat seems disingenuous. A sliding scale needs to be considered.
Featured Stories
See All
36:20
3h ago
2.5k
Expect dramatics: A&M hoops heads back to OKC in March
by Olin Buchanan
Aggies outlast LSU as Perez stays hot in 3-2 win
by Kayla Gaither