Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Banning travel by anyone who had been in China made sense at some point, but by that token so did banning travel by anyone who had been in Korea, Japan or Italy, something Trump never did. The singling out of China certainly leads one to believe that he was moved by reasons unrelated to public health. I wouldn't say racism, since he failed to ban travel from other East Asian countries.

Banning travel was the dumb option, but yes, if it was travel from anywhere risky it would have been helpful.

Instead, we should have been screening all travelers, all of whom may have been infected.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Banning travel by anyone who had been in China made sense at some point, but by that token so did banning travel by anyone who had been in Korea, Japan or Italy, something Trump never did. The singling out of China certainly leads one to believe that he was moved by reasons unrelated to public health. I wouldn't say racism, since he failed to ban travel from other East Asian countries.

did he ban travel from China? Honestly the first I heard was a ban from Europe.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

did he ban travel from China? Honestly the first I heard was a ban from Europe.

I just have to say, my avatar is one good looking man.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

did he ban travel from China? Honestly the first I heard was a ban from Europe.

IIRC, and I may not, he banned travelers who were not US citizens and who had been in China in the prior 30 days.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Is "shedding virus" the new "moist"?

[LessinSF]

More silver lining - https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/polit...ans/index.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Young people in the South seem to be more at risk.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Young people in the South seem to be more at risk.

In short, age may be irrelevant. Preexisting conditions such as heart disease, cancer, lung disease, or diabetes matter. Of course, those exist in greater percentages among the old. But also in greater percentages among the young in the American south, i.e. the fat smokers who don't exercise and eat poorly.

tl;dr - once again, people looked at correlation and wrongly saw causation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

In short, age may be irrelevant. Preexisting conditions such as heart disease, cancer, lung disease, or diabetes matter. Of course, those exist in greater percentages among the old. But also in greater percentages among the young in the American south, i.e. the fat smokers who don't exercise and eat poorly.

tl;dr - once again, people looked at correlation and wrongly saw causation.

I love you like kin, but "those exist in greater percentages among the old" means age does matter.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I love you like kin, but "those exist in greater percentages among the old" means age does matter.

Not really. Assume people over 70 had the same amount of relevant pre-existing conditions as people under 60. They would then be equally vulnerable and have the same infection and death rates. Accordingly, all that "matters" are the pre-existing conditions, and the only relevant question to anyone of any age would be "do you have heart disease, etc.?" Age may make that more likely, but is ultimately irrelevant to the likelihood of severity of the disease, once the answer to that question is known.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Not really. Assume people over 70 had the same amount of relevant pre-existing conditions as people under 60. They would then be equally vulnerable and have the same infection and death rates. Accordingly, all that "matters" are the pre-existing conditions, and the only relevant question to anyone of any age would be "do you have heart disease, etc.?" Age may make that more likely, but is ultimately irrelevant to the likelihood of severity of the disease, once the answer to that question is known.

Now go through the same process but substitute “fat, doesn’t exercise, smokes” for old.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Not really. Assume people over 70 had the same amount of relevant pre-existing conditions as people under 60. They would then be equally vulnerable and have the same infection and death rates. Accordingly, all that "matters" are the pre-existing conditions, and the only relevant question to anyone of any age would be "do you have heart disease, etc.?" Age may make that more likely, but is ultimately irrelevant to the likelihood of severity of the disease, once the answer to that question is known.

I don't think that what you are describing is consistent with evidence. It appears that age increases risk, apart from other conditions which also increase risk. Also, they are correlated.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think that what you are describing is consistent with evidence. It appears that age increases risk, apart from other conditions which also increase risk. Also, they are correlated.

I am not claiming what I was arguing is fact. I was extrapolating from the admittedly preliminary and unproven findings from the Kaiser study that article was based upon.

That said, nothing you say changes what I said. Age would increase risk because age increases the likelihood of having the suggested required pre-existing conditions. However, once the existence or non-existence of those conditions are known, age would become be a non-factor. Put another way, age is no longer a sine qua non. It is just an indicator of the likelihood of the existence of exacerbating influences, i.e. helpful toward diagnosis. But, if those influences are (or not) present, age should be irrelevant to prognosis (other than accounting for the fact that old people don't recover so well). Or, put it another way, age might be a concurrent cause, but not the proximate cause.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

In short, age may be irrelevant. Preexisting conditions such as heart disease, cancer, lung disease, or diabetes matter. Of course, those exist in greater percentages among the old. But also in greater percentages among the young in the American south, i.e. the fat smokers who don't exercise and eat poorly.

tl;dr - once again, people looked at correlation and wrongly saw causation.

ETA: Nm you said what I said in later message. Let us not forget of the numerous who were like patient zero in Italy, a 38 YO marathon runner.

There is data that those with stronger immune systems are hit harder by their body's vicious attack on the virus.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am not claiming what I was arguing is fact. I was extrapolating from the admittedly preliminary and unproven findings from the Kaiser study that article was based upon.

That said, nothing you say changes what I said. Age would increase risk because age increases the likelihood of having the suggested required pre-existing conditions. However, once the existence or non-existence of those conditions are known, age would become be a non-factor. Put another way, age is no longer a sine qua non. It is just an indicator of the likelihood of the existence of exacerbating influences, i.e. helpful toward diagnosis. But, if those influences are (or not) present, age should be irrelevant to prognosis (other than accounting for the fact that old people don't recover so well). Or, put it another way, age might be a concurrent cause, but not the proximate cause.

Age is definitely a factor because the strength of the immune system declines over time. And kids don't seem to be suffering from this at all.

HOWEVER, a strong immune system can also kill you. Some of the younger patients are undergoing what is called a cytokine storm, which is when the immune system goes into overdrive and doesn't stop. These patients do not have any underlying health conditions or indicia that they won't do well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4711683/

In 1918, MOST of the people who died were young and healthy (including one of my great-grandfathers and one of my great-uncles), and researchers think they were taken out because of the cytokine storm. In Covid-19, it seems to pop up in about 15 percent of the patients which is why there are so many stories of 35 year olds with no underlying health conditions not making it.

No one should be comfortable thinking that they're going to be fine if they get this thing.