funeralxempire wrote:
domineekee wrote:
Granted we have to go through with lockdown but where did you read that 40% of the cases were healthy young people? After lockdown, I can see a good case being made for easing restrictions on healthy 20 somethings and taking other preventative measures to slow the spread. In Taiwan, (next door to Wuhan) anyone who suspects that they have it is given free testing and financially supported through quarantine. Taiwan still isn't going into lockdown, they took other precautions which worked.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6704349/us-c ... er-adults/ It doesn't discuss the detail of how many of those 20 - 54 year olds had underlying health conditions**, only their age. Considering it's a rather large demographic, it's not surprising they'd make up more than a third of cases. ....
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/21190033/ ... ths-by-ageThanks for posting these articles. They seem to be relatively "serious"/sensible compared to some ... but for one thing, that the figures they keep giving for the % hospitalised, % in ICUs and % dead are percentages of identified ( tested and positive ) cases only, which in almost every age group that they look at is still an extremely small number of people, compared to the almost certainly far larger numbers actually infected but not tested, perhaps 10 times as many, ( or more ), which would make every % quoted ten times smaller, and Covid19 not much more ( or even less ) deadly than flu.
While the number of people tested remains so very small the % rates of anything ( hospitalisation, ICU, dead ), are going to be unreliable/very misleading, and unnecessarily alarming.
It's not even possible to say for sure what % of people hospitalised with Covid19 symptoms and a positive test for coronavirus will die because at the moment the coronavirus reputation is so awful that testing positive for it is almost certain to increase fear, belief that will die, and ( because nocibo is a real effect ), an actually increased probability of dying.