Anonymous wrote:Sweden is doing much less than us. 1/3 of their deaths are in nursing homes. Take those out and this pandemic’s impact on the general population over there looks even less lethal.

The Swedish experience is clearly making a lot of people uncomfortable as it doesn't fit the narrative. For the same reason Florida does too. It's rather fascinating how people refuse to see these places as good news.

The simple reality is that the virus exists. We can't wish it away. We have always known from the early days from the Chinese data (corrupt as it may have been) and especially the Italian data, the virus is not lethal to the vast majority but is more lethal to elderly people with health problems (Italian data early on showed average age of 80 and most with at least two comorbidities, which is replicated in the data from Massachusetts and even New York). The blunt reality is for all the media hype over the rare younger victim, the virus is mostly killing people who are already dying. The average tenure in nursing homes is 2 to 2 1/2 years before death. Any death before your time is sad and tragic. But somehow we have adopted this maniac shutdown crippling everyone. Which is horrendous too. People will be suffering from this shutdown long after tyr virus has passed through our society. And I'm not sure if we can ethically claim it was right to cripple the economic wellbeing and future for tens of millions to possibly, just possibly, save a few more lives for another year before they eventually succumbed to their health problems.

Sweden is doing much less than us. 1/3 of their deaths are in nursing homes. Take those out and this pandemic’s impact on the general population over there looks even less lethal.

Anonymous wrote:
It makes sense.

First, Older people are more likely to die from this disease. So age seems like a strong reason for the deaths in nursing homes.

Additionally, it is difficult to practice any form of social distancing in a huge facility where nurses, cleaners, caretakers, cooks are constantly interacting with several people at the time. Additionally, a lot of employees in nursing homes pick up extra work at different facilities.

I think people will move towards finding much smaller facilities for their elderly loved ones.

And most nursing home residents aren't in great health to begin with....

Anonymous wrote:The pattern of nursing home infections is almost exactly the same in my state-- about a quarter of cases in LT care, and 50% of the fatalities.
It's both good information for community spread and a national disgrace/tragedy. It can be both.

OP here. Exactly. I said in my post how awful this is for these people. It is a tragedy. It also radically changes how we should be thinking about this pandemic and its impact on the general population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Except it IS community spread, and workers there can and do spread the infection outside of their workplace and into the community, including hospitals, other nursing homes, group homes, and prisons... all places with people highly likely to catch it, and perhaps die from it.

No. It’s not. Treat nursing home workers totally differently. You can isolate them until this is over. We need a strong public health response to this. This is NOT the same as general community spread.

It is not the same as community spread because every other place is closed. Have you noticed that every place where people are in close quarters (factories, nursing homes, hospitals) there is rampant coronavirus? Because everywhere else is closed or is practicing social distancing. If you open everything up and we go back to crowding everywhere, the death rates for all populations will shoot straight up.

Uh huh. Sure. Sweden shows us that.

The pattern of nursing home infections is almost exactly the same in my state-- about a quarter of cases in LT care, and 50% of the fatalities.
It's both good information for community spread and a national disgrace/tragedy. It can be both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Except it IS community spread, and workers there can and do spread the infection outside of their workplace and into the community, including hospitals, other nursing homes, group homes, and prisons... all places with people highly likely to catch it, and perhaps die from it.

No. It’s not. Treat nursing home workers totally differently. You can isolate them until this is over. We need a strong public health response to this. This is NOT the same as general community spread.

It is not the same as community spread because every other place is closed. Have you noticed that every place where people are in close quarters (factories, nursing homes, hospitals) there is rampant coronavirus? Because everywhere else is closed or is practicing social distancing. If you open everything up and we go back to crowding everywhere, the death rates for all populations will shoot straight up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death is still dead, no matter how much you and the auto-trolls that replied twist it for your political views.

What’s your point? That it’s not significant that the risk falls disproportionately on the elderly? Shouldn’t that inform how we react to the virus ?

PP thinks we can’t discuss information that should inform our response to the virus because that means we don’t care about old people.

I don’t know how you think about old people. I only know you don’t think much.

And why is that?

Visceral responses to all posts. Sign of a closed mind.

Anonymous wrote:Ah if it's just the olds then, no worries. Better off without em

Karma will strike you back! I sure hope so.

Anonymous wrote:Ah if it's just the olds then, no worries. Better off without em

Straw man.

Ah if it's just the olds then, no worries. Better off without em

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death is still dead, no matter how much you and the auto-trolls that replied twist it for your political views.

What’s your point? That it’s not significant that the risk falls disproportionately on the elderly? Shouldn’t that inform how we react to the virus ?

PP thinks we can’t discuss information that should inform our response to the virus because that means we don’t care about old people.

I don’t know how you think about old people. I only know you don’t think much.

And why is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death is still dead, no matter how much you and the auto-trolls that replied twist it for your political views.

What’s your point? That it’s not significant that the risk falls disproportionately on the elderly? Shouldn’t that inform how we react to the virus ?

PP thinks we can’t discuss information that should inform our response to the virus because that means we don’t care about old people.

I don’t know how you think about old people. I only know you don’t think much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death is still dead, no matter how much you and the auto-trolls that replied twist it for your political views.

What’s your point? That it’s not significant that the risk falls disproportionately on the elderly? Shouldn’t that inform how we react to the virus ?

PP thinks we can’t discuss information that should inform our response to the virus because that means we don’t care about old people.

Anonymous wrote:Death is still dead, no matter how much you and the auto-trolls that replied twist it for your political views.

You would be horrific at developing public health responses.