1036 replies to this topic

[Dorian Grey]

Aerosol Transmission has finally been recognized by the CDC, with some ominous implications that haven't really been properly addressed at all.  For those interested in learning more on aerosols, the best paper I've seen is from Jose-Luis Jimenez, PhD.  I've attached this as a pdf, but MedScape featured this with comments and answers from Dr Jimenez which you may wish to read here: 

 

https://www.medscape...warticle/934837

 

COVID-19 Data Dives: Why Arguments Against SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol Transmission Don't Hold Water

 

My favorite comment was MINE, on vocalization generating far more aerosol than simply breathing, to which Dr Jimenez replied directly:  "Dear Bill, I agree with you. In fact something we have been repeating is that whoever is talking, is the most important person in terms of wearing a mask. The emissions of respiratory particles increase a factor of 10 when talking vs. just breathing, and more so for talking loudly." 

 

Dr Jimenez also states in his paper: "Although data are scarce, we suspect that aerosols in the range of 1-10 µm produced in speech (not coughing or sneezing) dominate aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2."

 

When I'm out & about, I don't look for people who aren't wearing masks; I LISTEN for people who are talking, and change course accordingly.  Why is this little secret not being spilled to the public.  

 

I've seen some sad examples of what passes for masks now days.  Face shields?  Neck Gaiters?  Bandanas?  Or my favorite, the reusable cloth mask with ear loops so stretched out the mask hangs open at the top.  These halfhearted attempts at complying may stop some droplets from hitting you in the face, but when it comes to aerosols they are essentially worthless.  

 

Dr Jimenez does point out although many aerosols are small enough to pass through the pours of a standard surgical mask, they do appear to trap a substantial percentage of aerosols.  "It is often stated than only N95 masks can stop most aerosols. This is true for pollution aerosols, with a typical size of 0.3 µm. But aerosols in the supermicron range are reasonably well filtered by wellworn surgical masks".  "The authors discuss several studies conducted in hospital environments that examined the effectiveness of N95 vs surgical masks in reducing transmission. Some studies did report that N95 masks provided better protection, while others found no difference.  The authors favor the latter studies and take those results as evidence against the importance of aerosol transmission. However, they fail to consider that those masks may not be that different for the supermicron particle size range that is probably most relevant to SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially when accounting for the imperfect fit of N95 masks for some users in the real world."  

 

Apparently many aerosols are sticking to mask fibers they bump into as they pass through the filter material.  This said, the mask in question would have to be tight enough against the face to force exhaled breath through the filter material, with no gaps to provide an escape route.  

 

Any government serious about mask mandates or even guidelines should be taking into account the only "real" mask that would realistically control aerosols would have to be a tri-layer disposable surgical mask changed daily, or the more high tech N-95+ or filter respirator.  Anything less is just for show.  

Attached Files

•  AerosolTransmission.pdf   129.03KB   3 downloads

[Mind]

OK folks, here's a mic drop report on the mask issue from Dr Mortenson, so get yourself a cup of coffee and watch the whole half hour.  

 

 

Masks...  They're not just for reducing fatality anymore.  They may actually be a path to herd immunity!  

 

I stand by my position for INDOOR use (thumbs up).  Outdoors?  Not so much.  

 

This is an interesting video, good points to consider, but he doesn't produce any clinical RCT-proven data. If this was true, you would think it would have EASILY and conclusively shown up in multiple previous RCT studies of mask-wearing. The previous studies all came up negative/inconclusive. Which is why I call masks the "spherical cow" of pandemic response. People are social. They need interaction for optimum health. They need to eat and drink. Parents need to tend to their kids. People who I know, who reject mask-wearing are quite severely impacted-psychologically. They feel the masks are freakish and de-humanizing.

 

Unless people are wearing the best best-fitting high-end respirators and wearing them all the time, including sleeping (if they are sleeping with a spouse/partner), and eating/drinking alone all the time, masking alone is not going to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases, maybe only slowing it down a small degree.

 

At least he is not arguing that masking prevents the spread of respiratory diseases, which is pretty obvious from the data. He even acknowledges that Japan had a huge second wave of infections - even though they had a very high adoption of masking.

[geo12the]

 If this was true, you would think it would have EASILY and conclusively shown up in multiple previous RCT studies of mask-wearing. The previous studies all came up negative/inconclusive. 

 

I was curious about this and did a deep dive into mask research at the beginning of the pandemic.  The abundance of published research studies I saw on Pubmed showed they do help prevent respiratory viruses, including RCT. I was surprised because many people were questioning their usefulness and saying no data existed that they helped but there were lots of studies supporting their use. Obviously there are challenges to setting up a rigorous RCT of masks and covid which is why that data is not available. But to say RCT studies on masks are all negative I think is false. Especially on this forum where many are quick to dismiss RCT. Bottom line is it's common sense: masks are one safeguard. No you don't wear them at home, while having sex, hiking in nature etc. but it makes sense to wear them in the Supermarket or hardware store or those kinds of settings. 

[Hip]

People who I know, who reject mask-wearing are quite severely impacted-psychologically. They feel the masks are freakish and de-humanizing.

 

Sounds these people may have mental health issues, some sort of phobia, along the lines of agoraphobia or claustrophobia. I've not come across anyone who finds mask wearing any big deal at all. 

 

Personally I've found you can get very slightly breathless when wearing a mask and talking to people, but otherwise I've no issues myself.

 

When I see people in the street wearing masks, I look at it as a sign of their good character. Whereas when I see people without a mask in places where they should be wearing one, I tend to think they have a cavalier attitude.

Edited by Hip, 10 October 2020 - 10:55 PM.

[Mind]

85% percent of recent SYMPTOMATIC cases were among people who either always or most often wore masks: https://www.cdc.gov/...wr/mm6936a5.htm

 

Like I suggested earlier, it seems masks are causing more spread and more illness, which is hard to explain. Maybe the low oxygen environment or the constant fear among mask-wearers is causing a lower immune response than for people who are not fearful and happy not wearing masks.

[Mind]

Sounds these people may have mental health issues, some sort of phobia, along the lines of agoraphobia or claustrophobia. I've not come across anyone who finds mask wearing any big deal at all. 

 

Personally I've found you can get very slightly breathless when wearing a mask and talking to people, but otherwise I've no issues myself.

 

When I see people in the street wearing masks, I look at it as a sign of their good character. Whereas when I see people without a mask in places where they should be wearing one, I tend to think they have a cavalier attitude.

 

That is an interesting, but kind-of odd take.

 

Just walking down the street, the obviously fearful people are the people wearing masks. Many people would argue that it is a "phobia" to be fearful of catching a respiratory virus with an IFR of a small fraction of 1% and is less deadly than the flu for people under 50 - according to the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/...-scenarios.html

[Florin]

85% percent of recent SYMPTOMATIC cases were among people who either always or most often wore masks: https://www.cdc.gov/...wr/mm6936a5.htm
 
Like I suggested earlier, it seems masks are causing more spread and more illness, which is hard to explain. Maybe the low oxygen environment or the constant fear among mask-wearers is causing a lower immune response than for people who are not fearful and happy not wearing masks.

 
That's a red herring: controls a had similar distribution of mask wearing, asymptomatic cases weren't mentioned, and a lot of the cases attended restaurants and bars where there were lots of maskless people.
 

Like I suggested earlier, it seems masks are causing more spread and more illness, which is hard to explain. Maybe the low oxygen environment or the constant fear among mask-wearers is causing a lower immune response than for people who are not fearful and happy not wearing masks.

Most of the theory and evidence I've seen suggests that masks are beneficial, not harmful. Masks don't cause a low oxygen environment. And while there might be some discomfort for some mask wearers, I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests masks cause widespread fear, unhappiness, or lowers immune system response.

 

https://www.consumer...95/make-a-mask/

Edited by Florin, 13 October 2020 - 07:55 PM.

[Florin]

That is an interesting, but kind-of odd take.

 

Just walking down the street, the obviously fearful people are the people wearing masks. Many people would argue that it is a "phobia" to be fearful of catching a respiratory virus with an IFR of a small fraction of 1% and is less deadly than the flu for people under 50 - according to the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/...-scenarios.html

 

People under-50 should wear a mask to avoid passing on the virus (or a least a larger dose of it) to people over-50.

[Heisok]

My neighbor had a contractor in their house for a bid. They were in close contact. The homeowners and contractor wore N95 masks The Contractor called to say that he was positive for Covid. They were exposed during the potential contagious phase.  Neither neighbor tested positive for active Covid infection. This does not prove that the masks worked. The neighbors have never had a test to see if they had the virus before. As far as I know, they could be immune.

 

I do not think that mask wearers generally have a phobia or are more fearful.. Seems like a strange characterization. Have you talked to many mask wearers in your area to see about their state of mind? Does your area have a large population maybe ranking in the top 20 urban areas?

 

Yesterday I picked up a pizza. I forgot to wear a mask upon entering. Was in close contact with a lady wearing an N95 mask. Went out to get my mask, and apologized to the lady. When she was leaving, she stopped to talk. She said that there was no problem. She wears her mask in spite of not being afraid of infection. It is out of respect for others.

 

 

Edited by Heisok, 14 October 2020 - 04:27 PM.

[Mind]

The UK, yet another country where masks have not stopped the spread. The red arrow is when a more restrictive mask ordinance went into effect - did nothing to stop a "second wave".

Attached Files

•  UK COVID.jpg   76.07KB   0 downloads

[Dorian Grey]

The most impressive real life mask test I've heard of is the Great Clips hair salon super-spreader event that never occurred.  

 

https://www.livescie...face-masks.html

 

Two stylists with coronavirus saw 139 clients with zero transmission.  Not too shabby!  Stylists & clients were both required to wear masks.  

 

I've been cutting my own hair for 35 years, but seem to recall getting a haircut involved some fairly close contact for 20-30 minutes; probably longer for the ladies.  

[Mind]

Mask mandate did nothing in Israel. The virus spread. I could keep posting more countries and states, but I don't think actual data will convince anyone.

Attached Files

•  Israel covid masks.png   29.16KB   0 downloads

[Mind]

The most impressive real life mask test I've heard of is the Great Clips hair salon super-spreader event that never occurred.  

 

https://www.livescie...face-masks.html

 

Two stylists with coronavirus saw 139 clients with zero transmission.  Not too shabby!  Stylists & clients were both required to wear masks.  

 

I've been cutting my own hair for 35 years, but seem to recall getting a haircut involved some fairly close contact for 20-30 minutes; probably longer for the ladies.  

 

There is obviously not enough data in this case to draw a concrete "scientific" conclusion. Only 67 of the workers/customers were tested. Less than half of those exposed.

 

Were they exposed?

 

I only ask this because of the known high false positive rate of the current PCR tests. Were the stylists symptomatic? It doesn't say in the article. If they were asymptomatic, then they might have not even had the virus - only a false positive test. In addition, the CDC and WHO have clearly stated that asymptomatic people are not significant spreaders of this coronavirus, so-much-so that the CDC recently advised asymptomatic people need not be tested.

[Hip]

The UK, yet another country where masks have not stopped the spread. The red arrow is when a more restrictive mask ordinance went into effect - did nothing to stop a "second wave".

 

Actually, if you care to check the facts, the UK has one of the lowest rates of mask wearing in the world, with only around 25% of the population wearing masks outside their home. See the graph here.

 

Whereas in countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, etc, around 95% of people wear masks outside of the home. And these Asian countries have some of the lowest coronavirus deaths per capita rates in the entire world.

 

 

So Asia is doing far better than the West in terms of coronavirus control, and one of the main differences between the West and Asia is the rate of mask wearing. 

 

It seems people in the West are just too thick to realize that coronavirus only generally spreads when this virus is ejected from an infected person's mouth or nose, and enters another person's mouth or nose. By blocking these routes using masks, you can greatly reduce viral spread.  

Edited by Hip, 14 October 2020 - 05:27 PM.

[Florin]

During the first wave (March to May) and for total deaths, early and high mask compliance was correlated with the lowest mortality for the countries listed in the YouGov mask compliance survey. During the second wave or period (June to October), mask compliance either held steady or increased, and while there were some increases in mortality (especially for Mexico), it was generally a lot lower than in the first wave when many countries had lower compliance.

 

Daily deaths per million

https://ourworldinda...&pickerSort=asc

 

Total deaths per million

https://ourworldinda...&pickerSort=asc

 

Mask compliance over time

https://today.yougov...-avoid-covid-19

[pamojja]

Actually, if you care to check the facts, the UK has one of the lowest rates of mask wearing in the world, with only around 25% of the population wearing masks outside their home. See the graph here.

 

Always depends on whome's facts, doesn't it?

 

Your article is from June 15th. Wikipedia has a chart from August 9th (deriving from https://today.yougov...void-covid-19).Added deaths per million until now, and daily deaths - last 7-day moving average:

Country	          % masked   death/million  daily deaths-7day moving average
			
Singapore	        92	5	0
Spain	                90	708	126
Thailand	        88	52	0
Hong Kong	        86	14	0
Japan	                86	13	4
Indonesia	        85	44	99
Malaysia	        85	149	3
Philippines	        84	58	77
France	                83	502	65
India	                82	79	924
Italy	                81	599	26
China	                80	3	0
Taiwan	                80	7	0
United Arab Emirates	79	45	2
Vietnam	                79	0,4	0
United Kingdom	        75	631	68
United States	        75	663	725
Canada	                74	254	19
Saudi Arabia 	        71	145	24
Mexico	                67	648	309
Germany	                65	116	14
Australia	        41	35	0
Poland	                23	80	53
Greece	                19	44	6
Russia	                10	156	177
Egypt	                8	59	10
Finland	                7	62	0
Sweden 	                6	583	1
Norway	                5	51	0
Denmark	                4	116	1

Really not much rhyme or reason. At least when cosidering masks only, but not the multitude of known other factors contributing.

 

From this chart the only sure which could said about masking is, that the 4 countries with exact 79-80% compliance, as well as those with the lowest 4-7%, had the exact same average of 0.5 deaths/day, last 7-day moving average. And for all practical reasons are over this pandemic. But are damned with exactly 90, 82 or 75% compliance ?!?

 

But since there seems really no correlation, it is really buffling many are so in want of this intervention without any correlation, while ignoring all other known contributing factors, not that easily modifyable.

Edited by pamojja, 15 October 2020 - 11:44 AM.

[Hip]

Always depends on whome's facts, doesn't it?

 

Your article is from June 15th. Wikipedia has a chart from August 9th

 

The data from the June 15th article is probably more relevant, as the bulk of coronavirus deaths so far in each country occurred in the first wave, which was in spring this year. The pandemic then temporarily eased off during summer. So if you want to assess the impact of mask wearing on deaths, you would want to look at the level of mask wearing during the spring period.

 

Of course, wearing masks is not the only difference between the West and Asia. Asian populations are by nature more cooperative and collectivist than the rebellious and individualistic Western populations. So that creates a different dynamic when it comes to organizing society to best deal with the pandemic.

 

Given that many Asian countries have coronavirus death per capita figures which are 10,000% lower than Western countries, you would think the West would send out people to Asia to find out what they are doing to keep coronavirus deaths so low, and then implement the same strategies in the West. But no, the bungling West is too arrogant and conceited to do that.

[pamojja]

Given that many Asian countries have coronavirus death per capita figures which are 10,000% lower than Western countries, you would think the West would send out people to Asia to find out what they are doing to keep coronavirus deaths so low, and then implement the same strategies in the West. But no, the bungling West is too arrogant and conceited to do that.

 

Of course China is the best. All power to the CCP.  

 

We know which party in the US they don't want let win. So all one has to do to give more power to the CCP in the west is to vote according to the wish of your masters.
 

I meanwhile consider my next vacation in a free country like Sweden. 

[Hip]

I meanwhile consider my next vacation in a free country like Sweden. 

 

Sweden has one of the highest per capita deaths in the world. Many nations in the West traded the lives of their elderly people just for the freedom not to wear masks and not to have restrictions on socializing. Does not say much for Western morality. 

 

 

Not only is the West's approach a moral failure, but it's also bad for the economy: this article explains that the nations whose economies are doing well during the pandemic are also the nations whose coronavirus deaths are the lowest.

 

It is a false assumption to state that there is a balance between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy.

 

The article concludes:

 

"We do not see any evidence of a trade-off between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy. Rather the relationship we see between the health and economic impacts of the pandemic goes in the opposite direction. As well as saving lives, countries controlling the outbreak effectively may have adopted the best economic strategy too."

[Daniel Cooper]

Sweden has one of the highest per capita deaths in the world. Many nations in the West traded the lives of their elderly people just for the freedom not to wear masks and not to have restrictions on socializing. Does not say much for Western morality. 

 

 

 

Sweden is also down to 1 or 2 deaths a day now.

 

I would think the risk of a trip to Sweden right now would be very low.

 

As to trading the lives of their elderly - if you've got a 78 year old that would have died in December from natural causes (i.e. old age) but instead dies in June because of covid, to what extent is that a "covid death" or was covid just a contributing factor in the death of a very old, very sick person?  

 

The sort of death I just described is a not at all insignificant percentage of covid deaths.  A great deal of these deaths have been in nursing homes and once you make it into a nursing home in old age the average stay is less that 2 years.

[Hip]

As to trading the lives of their elderly - if you've got a 78 year old that would have died in December from natural causes (i.e. old age) but instead dies in June because of covid, to what extent is that a "covid death" or was covid just a contributing factor in the death of a very old, very sick person?  

 

The sort of death I just described is a not at all insignificant percentage of covid deaths.  A great deal of these deaths have been in nursing homes and once you make it into a nursing home in old age the average stay is less that 2 years.

 

Yes a substantial portion of the elderly killed by coronavirus may have only had another 5 or 10 years of life before they would have died anyway, but if that elderly person is your mother or father, or a loved grandparent, you may be rather upset that you lost that time you could have shared with them. 

 

Furthermore, because COVID cases are overloading hospitals, people are also dying because they cannot get the medical treatment they need. Most people hospitalized with COVID do not die, but they do take up a lot of hospital beds and hospital resources, which have knock-on effects on patients with other medical conditions.

 

And as the article I linked to above shows, countries in which the coronavirus pandemic is poorly controlled are doing substantially worse economically than countries who have nipped coronavirus in the bud. So in the West we are throwing trillions down the drain, just because the West is too parochial to follow the successful pandemic control techniques used in Asian countries. 

[Florin]

The data from the June 15th article is probably more relevant, as the bulk of coronavirus deaths so far in each country occurred in the first wave, which was in spring this year. The pandemic then temporarily eased off during summer. So if you want to assess the impact of mask wearing on deaths, you would want to look at the level of mask wearing during the spring period.
 
Of course, wearing masks is not the only difference between the West and Asia. Asian populations are by nature more cooperative and collectivist than the rebellious and individualistic Western populations. So that creates a different dynamic when it comes to organizing society to best deal with the pandemic.
 
Given that many Asian countries have coronavirus death per capita figures which are 10,000% lower than Western countries, you would think the West would send out people to Asia to find out what they are doing to keep coronavirus deaths so low, and then implement the same strategies in the West. But no, the bungling West is too arrogant and conceited to do that.

 

And as the article I linked to above shows, countries in which the coronavirus pandemic is poorly controlled are doing substantially worse economically than countries who have nipped coronavirus in the bud. So in the West we are throwing trillions down the drain, just because the West is too parochial to follow the successful pandemic control techniques used in Asian countries.

 
The critical thing to keep in mind here is that the people most responsible for the pandemic getting out of control in the West were the health experts at the WHO, CDC, and at the state and county levels who told everyone not to wear masks just as the first wave was starting. Even if there was no evidence that cloth masks would work, they could have recommended that everyone stock up on reusable it's-gonna-work-no-matter-what respirators many years before the pandemic hit. Instead, they were obsessed with hard-to-develop, might-not-work vaccines and impractical contact tracing.

 

Yes, Asia has completely crushed the West in dealing with this pandemic. The USA is #1 again...in deaths.

 

https://ourworldinda...pickerSort=desc

 

 coronavirus-data-explorer.png   194.73KB   0 downloads

[Daniel Cooper]

Yes a substantial portion of the elderly killed by coronavirus may have only had another 5 or 10 years of life before they would have died anyway, but if that elderly person is your mother or father, or a loved grandparent, you may be rather upset that you lost that time you could have shared with them. 
 
Furthermore, because COVID cases are overloading hospitals, people are also dying because they cannot get the medical treatment they need. Most people hospitalized with COVID do not die, but they do take up a lot of hospital beds and hospital resources, which have knock-on effects on patients with other medical conditions.
 
And as the article I linked to above shows, countries in which the coronavirus pandemic is poorly controlled are doing substantially worse economically than countries who have nipped coronavirus in the bud. So in the West we are throwing trillions down the drain, just because the West is too parochial to follow the successful pandemic control techniques used in Asian countries.

 
 
No, the average covid decedent's life is not cut short by 5 or 10 years.  In the US, the average age of someone dying from covid is 78 years old ( source Characteristics of Persons Who Died with COVID-19 — United States, February 12–May 18, 2020 ).  Life expectancy in the US is 78.54 years.  So statistically speaking on average covid isn't shorting life in most western countries hardly at all.
 
Of course, these are only statistical averages.  There will be the occasional 20, 30, or 40 year old who will die from this disease, but they are atypical.  Likewise there will be the occasional 90 year old that recovers. But in looking at a disease like this, we can only reckon the averages.
 
So, while in specific cases covid might cut someone's life sort by a decade or more, on average covid isn't altering life expectancy at all.  It is overwhelmingly a disease that takes the very elderly, who are in the final months or year or two of their life.
 
That not a comfort if your 78 year old mother or grandmother is taken by this disease, but in making public policy you really can't consider individual cases. You must deal with statistics.

[Florin]

Mask mandate did nothing in Israel. The virus spread. I could keep posting more countries and states, but I don't think actual data will convince anyone.

 

Low compliance.

 

https://www.jta.org/...were-reinstated
https://www.reuters....t-idUSKBN26911A

Edited by Florin, 15 October 2020 - 06:29 PM.

[Hip]

 So, while in specific cases covid might cut someone's life sort by a decade or more, on average covid isn't altering life expectancy at all.  It is overwhelmingly a disease that takes the very elderly, who are in the final months or year or two of their life.

 

According to this data, roughly a quarter of all coronavirus deaths are in the 45 to 64 group — these are people who would have on average another 25 years of life, had coronavirus not killed them.

 

Another quarter of coronavirus deaths are in the 65 to 74 group — these are people who would have on average another 10 years of life.

 

And then around a half of coronavirus deaths are in the 75+ group — these are people who would have just a few years of life.

 

 

Then you have the coronavirus long haulers, many of which very likely have contracted myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome, a lifelong condition that often prevents you working (and is considered one of the worse diseases you can get, in terms of low quality of life). It has been estimated that there are 600,000 long haul COVID patients in the UK.

Edited by Hip, 15 October 2020 - 06:49 PM.

[Hebbeh]

https://thehill.com/...han-a-decade-of

The study found those who died from COVID-19 lost more than 10 years of their life on average.

Men lost about 13 years of potential life, while women lost about 11 years.

The estimates account for underlying health conditions.

No, the average covid decedent's life is not cut short by 5 or 10 years. In the US, the average age of someone dying from covid is 78 years old ( source Characteristics of Persons Who Died with COVID-19 — United States, February 12–May 18, 2020 ). Life expectancy in the US is 78.54 years. So statistically speaking on average covid isn't shorting life in most western countries hardly at all.

Of course, these are only statistical averages. There will be the occasional 20, 30, or 40 year old who will die from this disease, but they are atypical. Likewise there will be the occasional 90 year old that recovers. But in looking at a disease like this, we can only reckon the averages.

So, while in specific cases covid might cut someone's life sort by a decade or more, on average covid isn't altering life expectancy at all. It is overwhelmingly a disease that takes the very elderly, who are in the final months or year or two of their life.

That not a comfort if your 78 year old mother or grandmother is taken by this disease, but in making public policy you really can't consider individual cases. You must deal with statistics.

[Hebbeh]

More

https://www.wsj.com/...ime-11588424401

People dying of Covid-19 could have expected to live on average for at least another decade, according to two studies that help fill in the developing picture of the human cost of the coronavirus pandemic.

[Daniel Cooper]

So tell me, how does one square an average age of death of 78 years, versus a life expectancy of 78.5 years, with losing on average 10 years of life? That would imply that it is striking down the exceptionally healthy older person who is significantly lacking in comorbidities, which runs opposite to everything that has been noted about this disease.  Something smells distinctly off in one of the Nordic countries.

 

Also, it appears that these popular press articles point back to the Glasgow study which does not appear to have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

 

According to this data, roughly a quarter of all coronavirus deaths are in the 45 to 64 group — these are people who would have on average another 25 years of life, had coronavirus not killed them.

 

Another quarter of coronavirus deaths are in the 65 to 74 group — these are people who would have on average another 10 years of life.

 

And then around a half of coronavirus deaths are in the 75+ group — these are people who would have just a few years of life.

 

 

 

There's some information we need to put this in context, isn't there?

 

Before covid, say in 2018/19, for deaths that year what were the percentage of total deaths for each of those age brackets you quoted.  People aged 45-64, 65-74, and 75+ die every year don't they?  So in the general population deaths from all causes, how do those numbers compare to the covid death breakdown you quoted?

 

Perhaps you might look that up.

[Hebbeh]

I don't know anybody that dies from old age in their 70's anymore. Just about everybody I know that once reaches escape velocity in their 60's lives well into their 80's and 90's before succumbing to old age. My mom will be 96 at the end of the month. My dad did die at 89 but only because he NEVER went to the doctor until my mom called 911 after a massive stroke. My dad was the youngest of 8 and the youngest to die at 89. All his brothers died in the range of 94-96. His oldest sister died a couple months shy of 100. An uncle on my mom's side is still pretty healthy at 101. I could go on and on. And all of these stayed very functional up until the very end. And none of them lived an exceptionally healthy life other than working hard all their life and eating the typical American diet just like everybody else. From my experience, in today's world, dying before 85 is the exception and living into at least late 80's if not 90's is the rule as far as the disease of old age is concerned. Dying in your 70's is so last year... Or rather last century.

Edit to add... I'm 63 myself and still have my youngest, a 2 year old toddler at home. I won't have her out of high school until I'm 80 and have no intention of dying anytime soon. This isn't our grandparents world.

So tell me, how does one square an average age of death of 78 years, versus a life expectancy of 78.5 years, with losing on average 10 years of life? That would imply that it is striking down the exceptionally healthy older person who is significantly lacking in comorbidities, which runs opposite to everything that has been noted about this disease. Something smells distinctly off in one of the Nordic countries.

Also, it appears that these popular press articles point back to the Glasgow study which does not appear to have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

Edited by Hebbeh, 15 October 2020 - 08:49 PM.