Coronavirus General Discussion (no politics, no flamewars!)

It is truly unfortunate that 50 years ago, it was possible to leave your door unlocked and no one would enter to rob you (or otherwise harm you) I have speculated that the problem arises from the portability of our lives, so many of us move away from our 'home town' and end up in the middle of many strangers so there is little sense of community left. No one 'belongs' so we do not have the trust, and we do not extend sentiments of protection to others.

Hopefully the outcome of COVID-19 is more care for our neighbers (or getting care extended to us). Hopefully we have more of a sense of 'community' rather than being a collection of strangers in a common locale. We see signs of that, in folks who collect and distribute food to seniors or others unable to get out. Neighbors we know, but previously no more than a passing wave, call or text to see if they can pick up something while they are out shopping for their own families...even a mother under the stress of fighting childhood cancer in her eldest (now 9 yr old) son since he was 2 has inquired several times over the past monthj!

John Sheehy wrote in post #19048912
I doubt that age is a risk factor, independently, at least until the the mid-80s or even later. A 80-year old person can have good metabolic health and a strong immune system, but at least in countries like the US, most people are not healthy. Only 12% of adult Americans don't have one of the factors associated with metabolic syndrome (low HDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, obesity, hypertension, and high blood sugar).

Age correlates with deteriorating metabolic health and immune system function. People generally get worse as they get older, because they refuse to improve themselves, and they see their overworked doctors (who gets their continuing ed from pharma reps) for 10 minutes to get prescriptions.

People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness

Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019:a model-based analysis
See Table 1

There is evidence risk goes up by each decade of age (not just with Americans). There is no evidence those factors are from metabolic syndrome. When one gets older, one gets other health conditions that can compromise an immune system (such as cancer drugs)...or have underlying pulmonary issues.

According to some statistics from Santa Clara Co, CA, those in the 60-70 age group (me) were about in the same level of risk of infection (13%) as those in the 21-30 group (12%)! For those declining in health enough to require hsopitalization, the 60-70 group was as likely to end up in the hospital as the 19-49 group, according to informaiton published a couple of weeks ago. Where the younger group showed itself as superior to the older group was in the percentage of cases leading to death, 15% in my age group vs. 2%in the under-30 group.

Kinda reflects the invincibility of the under-30 group!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19048944
Trevor,

I sent you the full answer, just the way I typed it up. But there were a couple things that I didn't want to post publicy, so I deleted those parts in this response here (below).

I fear having dreams and desires and not being able to fulfill them. Like wanting to go on trips that I can't afford to go on. Or wanting to photograph certain species of wildlife that I am not able to photograph. Or ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- and having to settle for less physically attractive women than those I really long for. It sucks to want something and not be able to have it, and I fear those feelings.

I fear getting caught for ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- .

I fear having to live a "normal life" instead of an adventurous one. I see all of the "family men" that I know and am afraid that someday my life may be like theirs - boring.

I fear that necessity will some day force me into making commitments (to a source of income) that will no longer allow me to take off whenever I want, for as long as I want.

I fear things that make me use a lot of focus and concentration in order to learn them. I do not like how it feels to think really hard about something in order to figure it out, and I dread ever being in a situation where I will be forced to think hard like that.

I fear boredom, and the kind of life where each day is fairly similar to all the other days. I also fear boredom in the sense that none of the things available to me at any given moment will be exciting or interesting enough to satisfy my craving for stimulation from external sources (it takes effort to truly entertain myself from within, and there are times when I am tired and I just want something effortless to entertain me).

I fear being uncomfortable - like only being able to heat my house to 65 degrees and thus having to wear clothes, instead of being able to keep my house up at 74 or 75 degrees and wearing nothing but my birthday suit when I am home. It is not as comfortable to have clothes on as it is to not have clothes on. Or feeling a little "oily" or "sticky" and not being able to take a shower right away so that I feel clean.

I fear that my internet or my computer will fail someday, and that for a spell I will not be able to entertain myself in the way that I prefer.

I also fear that the NFL will have to cancel at least a part of its 2020 schedule of games, and that would deprive me of the enjoyment and passion that are such a huge part of my life.

I fear my parents dying, and not having that "home base" back in Pennsylvania that I have had all my life. I realize this is inevitable, and I fully accept that, but I fear the feelings of loss that I expect to have when that time comes.

I fear that our government will manage wildlife in a way that reduces my ability to photograph them the way that I want to. Like culling populations that they think are over-abundant, or closing certain areas off to photography and other recreation. This has already happened in a few areas, and it has caused an enormous disruption in my life and reduced the overall quality of my life.

I fear situations that will require me to do things I don't like doing in order to resolve them. . Things like a water heater dying - it is very uncomfortable to go down into my basement and cut out the existing water heater and bring it up the steps and go through the process of getting a new one down there and piping it in. . There are cobwebs and I don't like how they feel when they get all over me, and I don't like how it feels to have to scrunch my body up to work in tight spaces.

I guess to summarize, my greatest fears are having to endure things that I don't like, that are unpleasant or uncomfortable. . And I also fear not being able to do the things that I like to do the most, like adventuring in nature in many different parts of the continent, or being able to watch football games or movies whenever I want to watch them.

Those are my very greatest fears.

.

I'm the opposite. I love history. I think of the millions who endured last two world wars, everything in recorded history and before. My dad told me stories of when he was in Europe during WW2. He like many were running from both Germany/Russia trying to get caught by the Allies, which happened. My mom also from Europe and had correspondence with her family for about 10 years after WW2 and one day it stopped. She passed 60 years later without knowing the fate of her family. 60+ years I have never been truly uncomfortable except for 1st world problems like my fridge failing or my vehicles brake needing to be replaced at an inconvenient time. They went though awful times in there twenties. I'm prepared to give up my comforts to get past this.

I'm pretty ticked off at losing sports and the other things. I'm huge Bond fan and they postponed the latest one. We were in Rome and walked the street at night that led to the Vatican. Back home Spectre was in theatres a few weeks later and there was a car chase down that street. Wow for us. Being a Winnipeg Jets fan my other team since I was about 10 are the Bruins. They were going to win the Stanley Cup this year but I said that last year. I'm gonna miss sports, etc but I'll adjust.

I'm not afraid of too many things. The last big fear was coming home from Europe on March 5th. We curled the next day and the next Friday. As usual the wet out with the crew for beers and supper both days. It was around march 13 when the stuff hit the fan and we stopped seeing people. I needed to get past the next without getting sick. My curling buddy and long term friend has a compromised immune system. I was also concerned about our other friends as well. I didn't want to hurt anyone.

I only have one fear and I don't know why. It seldom happens and I'd have better odds of winning a lottery. I won't be able to protect my family during a home invasion.

With all that babble I forgot to say. In WWII they asked young people to go overseas and fight. In 2020 they are asking us to sit on the couch for a few months.

Pippan wrote in post #19048895
Yes! The world will be a better place with more nudists!

That all depends on what neighborhood you live in I think.

Wilt wrote in post #19049005
Kinda reflects the invincibility of the under-30 group!

And the mindset that puts more burdens on the healthcare system.

digital paradise wrote in post #19049007
I'm pretty ticked off at losing sports and the other things. I'm huge Bond fan and they postponed the latest one. We were in Rome and walked the street at night that led to the Vatican. Back home Spectre was in theatres a few weeks later and there was a car chase down that street. Wow for us. Being a Winnipeg Jets fan my other team since I was about 10 are the Bruins. They were going to win the Stanley Cup this year but I said that last year. I'm gonna miss sports, etc but I'll adjust.

It's pretty funny that I live right near an abandoned trainyard that shows up as sets in a lot of movies (since Atlanta has become a major filming location with large studios). Last night I was watching the latest Bad Boys movie....and saw some scenes of the trainyard (composited with the coast of Miami). I even remember walking by the trainyard a little while ago when they had a part flooded with speedboats and palm trees wondering "what production is that for". Now I know!

Area they flooded:

IMAGE LINK: https://davesrose.smug​mug.com …an-Train-Yard/i-sQVscPt/A

IMAGE LINK: https://davesrose.smug​mug.com …an-Train-Yard/i-4hLJkJ7/A

For what it's worth I have presented a link to today's daily press conference headed by the NZ PM and Dr Bloomfield, the Director-General of Health (a civil servant). He has become a bit of a cult figure for his unflappable demeanour and amazing delivery of factual data:
https://www.stuff.co.n​z …eld-honoured-in-rap-video
https://www.nzherald.c​o.nz …?c_id=1&objecti​d=12324520

If you wonder how we have coped with our own pandemic journey and how our government, health professionals, press and community engage, I hope you will use some of your own lock-down time to watch the video and compare it to how your own country does things. I'd be interested in your comments or own video links.

https://covid19.govt.n​z …dia-conferences-19-april/

To lighten things up. I have been happy married for 38 years. At minute 1:40 is one of my favourite lines I have used for years.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=b8IqSIw1P0I

#2. How's life lol.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=ysvXf-Q1dnI

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19048899
.
I appreciate that you took the time to explain how specialization works.
.

.
But, I don't have a responsibility to society, nor to anyone else. . I have a responsibility to myself, to enable myself to get the things that I want that will provide a more enjoyable life.

When I want the things that other people ("society") has made, then I can barter with society and give things to others that they want. . They in turn pay me money that I can use to get the things that I want. . I am not responsible to others - I merely barter with them to get what I want. . My responsibility is to myself.

Each of us is responsible to ourselves, and it is up to us to barter in a way that gets us what we want. . Producing things that others needs is not a duty or a responsibility. . It is simply what we do when we want to get stuff that other people have produced. . It is borne of a desire to get things for one's self, not out of a debt that we have to help support others.

When I do things that help the less fortunate, or those in need, I do so out of choice. . I am free to help them, or not to help them. . I have no duty or responsibility to help others. . I can do so, but it is up to me if I do or not. . Helping others is something that should always be done from a free will; no one should ever be put in a position where they are forced, or expected, to help others.

.

What youre descriping here in a larger scale is called anarchy. Taken to it's extremes societies would break down and your have to live from the land, growing All your food, doing All maintanance (forget about water heaters and air conditioning) and looking at how much work was put in to agriculture Up till 100 years ago i doubt there is much time left for what you like doing.

davesrose wrote in post #19049002
People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness

Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019:a model-based analysis
See Table 1

There is evidence risk goes up by each decade of age (not just with Americans).

Epidemiology-based risk is a very dodgy field, where one can spin things any way they want, and get away with it with most people. Neither link counters what I wrote; the first mentions a lot of metabolic syndrome issues, and the second selectively focuses on age and does not stress the issue of confounding variables.

Association is not proof of causation. Imagine if people's feet grew through their entire life. Then, we could say that people with the largest feet are at the highest risk of hospitalization or death. People on pensions and social security are at an elevated risk. We can find a lot of correlations if we look for them, but none of them are necessarily the cause. The typical person in the modern world, eating modern food inventions and enjoying 24/7 abundance of it, has degenerating metabolic health as they age, and over the years, they have more opportunities to suffer permanent physical damage to their lungs. That does not mean that having an age number, like 80, dictates an especially elevated risk for an individual; only for the total population of 80-year-olds, who vary widely in their metabolic, immune, and lung health. What I am suggesting in my previous post is that any causative factor of age is probably restricted to the very upper range of ages where people genetically run out of the ability for the body to regenerate itself properly, but I don't think that it is a significant independent contributor to the histogram where the correlation or association with age starts to rise on the left side of the peak.

The point is that people should not base their risk on age. Yes, a certain stage of diabetes or a certain blood pressure level or poor HDL/trigliceride ratio is more associated with risk at higher ages, but for any individual, separated from the abstract histogram, their risk, especially in terms of what they can actually control, is heavily related to metabolic syndrome, which can be reversed by diet (what you eat and when you eat it) and to a smaller degree by high-intensity exercise. Don't expect your age to damn you, or to save you. There are already multiple people in their 90s who have recovered.

Metabolic syndrome happens with elevated levels of insulin and IGF-1 and blood glucose, all of which are favorable to most cancers. Pulmonary issues and severity associate with age, but are not caused by the number.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19049212
Epidemiology-based risk is a very dodgy field, where one can spin things any way they want, and get away with it with most people. Neither link counters what I wrote; the first mentions a lot of metabolic syndrome issues, and the second selectively focuses on age and does not stress the issue of confounding variables.

Association is not proof of causation. Imagine if people's feet grew through their entire life. Then, we could say that people with the largest feet are at the highest risk of hospitalization or death. People on pensions and social security are at an elevated risk. We can find a lot of correlations if we look for them, but none of them are necessarily the cause. The typical person in the modern world, eating modern food inventions and enjoying 24/7 abundance of it, has degenerating metabolic health as they age, and over the years, they have more opportunities to suffer permanent physical damage to their lungs. That does not mean that having an age number, like 80, dictates an especially elevated risk for an individual; only for the total population of 80-year-olds, who vary widely in their metabolic, immune, and lung health. What I am suggesting in my previous post is that any causative factor of age is probably restricted to the very upper range of ages where people genetically run out of the ability for the body to regenerate itself properly, but I don't think that it is a significant independent contributor to the histogram where the correlation or association with age starts to rise on the left side of the peak.

The point is that people should not base their risk on age. Yes, a certain stage of diabetes or a certain blood pressure level or poor HDL/trigliceride ratio is more associated with risk at higher ages, but for any individual, separated from the abstract histogram, their risk, especially in terms of what they can actually control, is heavily related to metabolic syndrome, which can be reversed by diet (what you eat and when you eat it) and to a smaller degree by high-intensity exercise. Don't expect your age to damn you, or to save you. There are already multiple people in their 90s who have recovered.

Metabolic syndrome happens with elevated levels of insulin and IGF-1 and blood glucose, all of which are favorable to most cancers. Pulmonary issues and severity associate with age, but are not caused by the number.

No. If the information is known, it will provide useful data. Like any statistical measure, people can and will misuse the data, or draw incorrect conclusions from it. All of the risk factors you mention are based on epidemiology statistics (see below).

Here's an example:
From https://www.medscape.o​rg/viewarticle/588474 (emphasis mine):

Capn Jack wrote in post #19049214
No. If the information is known, it will provide useful data. Like any statistical measure, people can and will misuse the data, or draw incorrect conclusions from it. All of the risk factors you mention are based on epidemiology statistics (see below).

Here's an example:
From https://www.medscape.o​rg/viewarticle/588474 (emphasis mine):

That link leads to a homepage; not an article.

I didn't say that the information is not useful. I said that it is not complete.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19049225
That link leads to a homepage; not an article.

I didn't say that the information is not useful. I said that it is not complete.

Odd- it works for me. I still quoted the pertinent part- that HDL/triglyceride are correlated to diabetes, not causal.

As you said, the information is incomplete, so the correlation of age for this virus still holds, albeitly, less precisely. The Chinese noticed the correlation with age, but few of them have the issues from diet that you mentioned.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19049212
Epidemiology-based risk is a very dodgy field, where one can spin things any way they want, and get away with it with most people. Neither link counters what I wrote; the first mentions a lot of metabolic syndrome issues, and the second selectively focuses on age and does not stress the issue of confounding variables.

Association is not proof of causation. Imagine if people's feet grew through their entire life. Then, we could say that people with the largest feet are at the highest risk of hospitalization or death. People on pensions and social security are at an elevated risk. We can find a lot of correlations if we look for them, but none of them are necessarily the cause. The typical person in the modern world, eating modern food inventions and enjoying 24/7 abundance of it, has degenerating metabolic health as they age, and over the years, they have more opportunities to suffer permanent physical damage to their lungs. That does not mean that having an age number, like 80, dictates an especially elevated risk for an individual; only for the total population of 80-year-olds, who vary widely in their metabolic, immune, and lung health. What I am suggesting in my previous post is that any causative factor of age is probably restricted to the very upper range of ages where people genetically run out of the ability for the body to regenerate itself properly, but I don't think that it is a significant independent contributor to the histogram where the correlation or association with age starts to rise on the left side of the peak.

The point is that people should not base their risk on age. Yes, a certain stage of diabetes or a certain blood pressure level or poor HDL/trigliceride ratio is more associated with risk at higher ages, but for any individual, separated from the abstract histogram, their risk, especially in terms of what they can actually control, is heavily related to metabolic syndrome, which can be reversed by diet (what you eat and when you eat it) and to a smaller degree by high-intensity exercise. Don't expect your age to damn you, or to save you. There are already multiple people in their 90s who have recovered.

We still can make correlations (as you're trying to do with metabolic syndrome). The CDC link lists metabolic syndrome as 1 out of 7 underlying conditions for risk factors (overweight: diabetes type II is prevalently based on diet, but not type I). If it was as you have claimed: that age is not an issue until 85, and that metabolic syndrome is the overlaying risk....then we would not see the distribution as I showed in the Lancet article. Your argument of people not taking care of themselves with diet, then we would expect a higher risk with younger age groups (as rates of metabolic syndrome has significantly gone up in America with <35). The Lancet article is using statistics for 38 countries: many with different diets and not the same distribution of metabolic syndrome.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19049212
Metabolic syndrome happens with elevated levels of insulin and IGF-1 and blood glucose, all of which are favorable to most cancers. Pulmonary issues and severity associate with age, but are not caused by the number.

Seems like more filtering of info. The number one underlying risk factor my CDC link lists: "People with chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma". Statistically, people develop lung disease or cancers at older age groups. Previously in this post, you also insinuate lung disease is caused by metabolic syndrome, when sources say smoking/vaping, radon, asbestos, and air pollution are larger factors. Such is the case with cancer as well: diet is not the only cause. While there are more instances of cancer from diet, genetics, smoking, sunlight, viruses...these are other factors for cancer.

As far as interpreting what statistics mean with risk factor due to age group....if you look at the actual percentages, you see it doesn't "damn" people. The Lancet article indicates case fatality ratio of: 40-49: 0.445%, 50-59: 1.30%, 60-69: 3.60%, 70-79: 7.96%, >= 80: 14.8%. Note that these are pure statistics and not "spin". It does show evidence that there is a higher fatality ratio with age, but at most it goes to 14.8% for case fatality (at least at time of publication).

Capn Jack wrote in post #19049240
Odd- it works for me. I still quoted the pertinent part- that HDL/triglyceride are correlated to diabetes, not causal.

Looks like Mescape requires account registration.