Coronavirus General Discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by SomeDude » Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:54 pm

WiseOne wrote:
Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:26 pm
Cases were completely determined by the clinical picture. If that same criterion were applied to COVID 19 the numbers would go down....how much we don't know of course, but could be somewhere in the range of 20% to 50%.
Sounds like the normal flu. Imagine if every year 400M flu tests were administered in the US and every person who tested positive and died were labeled a "flu-related" death, even if it was a car crash.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by vnatale » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:48 pm

An excellent, sensible, well-balanced opinion / article.

Putting the whole thing here in the belief that many of you might not otherwise have access to it.

Vinny


When Is the Covid-19 Pandemic Over?

by Aaron E. Carroll
NYT > Home Page / 2021-04-27 16:04


April 27, 2021, 3:00 p.m. ET
Normal has never meant “perfectly safe.” A safer world will likely still have Covid-19 in it.

By Aaron E. Carroll

Dr. Carroll is a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine and a contributing opinion writer. He writes often on health research and policy.

During the pandemic, good management and guidance have often been lacking. If we want to make our exit from the crisis better than our entrance and passage through it, we’ve got to start planning now. A good first step would be to agree on our definition of an ending.

When can we declare the pandemic over?

Not yet, of course. Cases are stalled or rising in many areas. Virus variants are becoming more prevalent. While many people are vaccinated, many more are not. Hospitalizations and deaths are still occurring, especially in those groups not yet fully immunized. Community spread is far too rampant, and risks still abound. Recently the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, warned of “impending doom” from a fourth surge if we aren’t careful.

But things are significantly better than they were a few months ago. As we continue to improve, it would be useful to have guidance on how we might ease the policies that have kept us protected.

Too many people, though, are unwilling to talk about any lowering of our guard � even in the future � because so some danger still exists. They want to know that no one is dying of Covid-19 in their community anymore, or they want to know that there are no cases in the area and that there is no chance of their being exposed.

I understand the sentiment, as we have been overwhelmed with messaging about how dangerous Covid-19 is. But the sentiment is not realistic, nor is it reasonable. Such extreme vigilance can also backfire: Each day we wait, more people become impatient and abandon their posts.

Normal has never meant “perfectly safe.” A safer world will likely still have Covid-19 in it.

Ideally, we should reduce restrictions gradually while we closely monitor the situation. First, we might liberalize outdoor gatherings and open schools and maybe even camps more fully. If all goes well, we could allow for denser indoor public events, with masks. We could allow restaurants and bars to increase to full capacity in stages.

While we do all this, we should track cases, hospitalizations and positivity rates. We will still need to test widely, even asymptomatic people, to measure our progress. Should all go well, eventually, we could get rid of masking requirements. If enough people are vaccinated and transmissions slow, we will reach a place where we are much, much safer than we are now.

Americans are generally willing to live with a greater-than-zero level of risk in exchange for what we used to consider a normal life. The roads are full of cars, even though accidents are the No. 1 killer of children. We don’t seem that eager as a country to restrict access to guns, even though they cause injuries or deaths every day. Bottom line: We can sometimes collectively act to reduce risk, but we almost never eliminate it.

That doesn’t mean that public health officials should stop pushing for the best outcome. That’s their job. When the risk is immediate and severe, as it has been for the past year, we pay close attention, as we should. But when the risk is lower and the gain more incremental, we often don’t.

On the one hand, I’ve written extensively on how the C.D.C.’s advice on salt and alcohol can feel excessive and how the World Health Organization thinks seemingly everything causes cancer. On the other, I think Americans don’t take those groups seriously enough when it comes to the flu. Others may disagree. The important thing for people to do is to strike a balance between the ideal and the doable.

The danger from Covid-19 is still great enough in some places that we need to be vigilant. But if we can get the pandemic to a point that a vast majority of people who become sick get well, that the number of people who are hospitalized and dying is low and that this really isn’t any worse than your average seasonal respiratory virus, then it’s time to start seriously relaxing our restrictions.

Well over 100 people die of influenza in the United States on an average day in a typical flu season, but that figure doesn’t approach the alarming numbers from Covid-19. We aren’t close to eliminating that gap, but it’s absolutely possible as vaccination increases. We can’t be afraid to set benchmarks on our way there for the gradual relaxation of guidelines. Announcing goals and expectations will give Americans something to shoot for and a reason to hold fast for now.

Of course, it would be welcome if we could learn from this experience and set a new normal. If people want to remain more vigilant in the coming years and stay home when sick, mask up when they have a cough or other cold symptoms, wash their hands more often and get vaccinated every year, I’d be all for it. It would save lives from Covid-19, and it would greatly reduce the morbidity and mortality from other infectious diseases as well.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
GT
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by GT » Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:22 am

WiseOne wrote:
Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:26 pm
Comparing COVID 19 to the 1918 flu epidemic is frankly insulting to anyone who lived through that. And a slap in the face to the field of epidemiology.

The 1918 flu, if it occurred today, would have killed 600 million people worldwide by now. And you may recall that a substantial proportion of COVID 19 cases (and likely some of the deaths) are based on positive test results. In 1918 there was no test. Cases were completely determined by the clinical picture. If that same criterion were applied to COVID 19 the numbers would go down....how much we don't know of course, but could be somewhere in the range of 20% to 50%.
WiseOne -

Would you have access to total deaths by year for the US; for the last few years?

With all the reclassing of deaths with the word covid tied to them, I was wondering if there is a place to research total deaths by year.

I have found a few graphs online but I am not sure of the authenticity

if you guys have already reviewed the data my apologies -
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:47 am

Just saw this on another forum:

New York City opens fully (100%) on July 1!! We just received that announcement this morning. Wow! Fully capacity, this states, for restaurants, sports events, and Broadway, among all the others. And fully open schools in the fall. This is the result of dropping indicators of virus infection and is due in great part to 6.3 million vaccinations in NYC to date.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:06 am

GT wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:22 am
WiseOne wrote:
Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:26 pm
Comparing COVID 19 to the 1918 flu epidemic is frankly insulting to anyone who lived through that. And a slap in the face to the field of epidemiology.

The 1918 flu, if it occurred today, would have killed 600 million people worldwide by now. And you may recall that a substantial proportion of COVID 19 cases (and likely some of the deaths) are based on positive test results. In 1918 there was no test. Cases were completely determined by the clinical picture. If that same criterion were applied to COVID 19 the numbers would go down....how much we don't know of course, but could be somewhere in the range of 20% to 50%.
WiseOne -

Would you have access to total deaths by year for the US; for the last few years?

With all the reclassing of deaths with the word covid tied to them, I was wondering if there is a place to research total deaths by year.

I have found a few graphs online but I am not sure of the authenticity

if you guys have already reviewed the data my apologies -
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Monthly-Count ... /bxq8-mugm

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Monthly-Count ... /9dzk-mvmi
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by WiseOne » Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:19 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:47 am
Just saw this on another forum:

New York City opens fully (100%) on July 1!! We just received that announcement this morning. Wow! Fully capacity, this states, for restaurants, sports events, and Broadway, among all the others. And fully open schools in the fall. This is the result of dropping indicators of virus infection and is due in great part to 6.3 million vaccinations in NYC to date.
Don't get too excited. The mayor said he PLANS to reopen the city by July 1. Typical loose-cannon de Blasio. I think he's just holding it out as a carrot to get more people to go for the vaccine. Also, it's not clear he got permission to say that from Papa Cuomo.

Just as a quick exercise, take a look at the NYC curve of COVID 19 deaths for 2021, after the winter wave, and compare to COVID 19 deaths in 2020 after the initial March wave petered out by sometime in May. You tell me if you think this is due to the vaccines rather than typical weather related variations in flu-like illnesses.

This technique is what used to be called "declare victory and walk off the field." That is possible, but I think it's more likely that the mayors & governors have gotten used to keeping tight controls on large populations, and it will take quite a while before they willingly give that up.

Regarding GT's question on excess deaths during COVID: yes, it's not clear what proportion are due to COVID itself vs COVID testing artifact vs. collateral damage on the people with life-threatening illnesses that went untreated, or inadequately treated during lockdown. Ivor Cummins did an analysis of that in the UK and determined that the excess deaths were entirely due to the collateral damage from lockdowns.
User avatar
GT
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by GT » Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:22 am

WiseOne wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:19 am
Mountaineer wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:47 am
Just saw this on another forum:

New York City opens fully (100%) on July 1!! We just received that announcement this morning. Wow! Fully capacity, this states, for restaurants, sports events, and Broadway, among all the others. And fully open schools in the fall. This is the result of dropping indicators of virus infection and is due in great part to 6.3 million vaccinations in NYC to date.
Don't get too excited. The mayor said he PLANS to reopen the city by July 1. Typical loose-cannon de Blasio. I think he's just holding it out as a carrot to get more people to go for the vaccine. Also, it's not clear he got permission to say that from Papa Cuomo.

Just as a quick exercise, take a look at the NYC curve of COVID 19 deaths for 2021, after the winter wave, and compare to COVID 19 deaths in 2020 after the initial March wave petered out by sometime in May. You tell me if you think this is due to the vaccines rather than typical weather related variations in flu-like illnesses.

This technique is what used to be called "declare victory and walk off the field." That is possible, but I think it's more likely that the mayors & governors have gotten used to keeping tight controls on large populations, and it will take quite a while before they willingly give that up.

Regarding GT's question on excess deaths during COVID: yes, it's not clear what proportion are due to COVID itself vs COVID testing artifact vs. collateral damage on the people with life-threatening illnesses that went untreated, or inadequately treated during lockdown. Ivor Cummins did an analysis of that in the UK and determined that the excess deaths were entirely due to the collateral damage from lockdowns.
I found a NCHS Data Brief, Number 359 Published in Dec 2020

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-H.pdf

Mortality in the United States, 2019
Kenneth D. Kochanek, M.A., Jiaquan Xu, M.D., and Elizabeth Arias, Ph.D

Summary
In 2019, a total of 2,854,838 resident deaths were registered in the United States—15,633 more
deaths than in 2018. From 2018 to 2019, the age-adjusted death rate for the total population
decreased 1.2%, and life expectancy at birth increased 0.1 year. Age-specific death rates between
2018 and 2019 decreased for age groups 45–54, 65–74, 75–84, and 85 and over, and increased for
age group 35–44. Age-adjusted death rates decreased for non-Hispanic black males and females
and non-Hispanic white males and females.

The 10 leading causes of death in 2019 remained the same as in 2018, although 2 causes
exchanged ranks. Influenza and pneumonia, the eighth leading cause in 2018, became the ninth
leading cause in 2019, while kidney disease, the ninth leading cause in 2018, became the eighth
leading cause in 2019 (1). Age-adjusted death rates decreased for seven leading causes and
increased for one. Life expectancy at birth increased 0.1 year from 78.7 years in 2018 to 78.8 in
2019, largely because of decreases in mortality from cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases,
influenza and pneumonia, suicide, and stroke.

In 2019, the 10 leading causes of death (heart disease, cancer, unintentional injuries, chronic
lower respiratory diseases, stroke, Alzheimer disease, diabetes, kidney disease, influenza and
pneumonia, and suicide) remained the same as in 2018, although two causes exchanged ranks
(Figure 4). Influenza and pneumonia, the eighth leading cause in 2018, became the ninth leading
cause in 2019, while kidney disease, the ninth leading cause in 2018, became the eighth leading
cause in 2019 (1). Causes of death are ranked according to number of deaths (1). The 10 leading
causes of death accounted for 73.4% of all deaths in the United States in 2019.


So:

2019 had 2,854,838 resident deaths
2018 had 2,839,205 resident deaths

We should expect to have 2020 come in over 3 plus million deaths; if COVID caused 300K deaths in 2020.

Based on the date of this report, looks like the data for 2020 will not be available until the end of 2021.

Will be interesting to see how all the numbers play out vs prior years
barrett
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by barrett » Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:39 am

Well, it looks like the provisional death total for the US in 2020 is 3,358,814 according to the CDC. Link is here:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm

As one would expect (assuming they have a pulse), COVID is way worse for older Americans. Of the total, 377,883 are categorized as COVID related.

The idea of "provisional deaths" makes me think of the Monty Python "Bring out your dead" scene. Or The Princess Bride scene where Miracle Max says that "Mostly dead is still partly alive."
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by stuper1 » Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:27 pm

Will be interesting to see if we have less than normal deaths in 2021 and the next few years. Of course, with untreated cancers, etc. due to the lockdowns, it may not be that simple.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:31 pm

I went maskless in the grocery store today. They haven't had a sign on the door for a little while, so I figured I'd see what it felt like. I have to say, I felt like a criminal. I was the only person in the store without one. But I'm no longer any real danger to anyone else, nor they to me. So it's bleeping time. What a rebel I am! ;)
User avatar
GT
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by GT » Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:32 pm

barrett wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:39 am
Well, it looks like the provisional death total for the US in 2020 is 3,358,814 according to the CDC. Link is here:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm

As one would expect (assuming they have a pulse), COVID is way worse for older Americans. Of the total, 377,883 are categorized as COVID related.

The idea of "provisional deaths" makes me think of the Monty Python "Bring out your dead" scene. Or The Princess Bride scene where Miracle Max says that "Mostly dead is still partly alive."
"provisional death" - I think that's what my heart is telling me - I had no idea Heart disease took out so many each year - Close to 700K - Maybe I need to stop worrying about my money lasting in retirement and work on my health....:)

Monty Python "Bring out your dead" scene is a classic "but I'm not dead yet - I'm feeling better"
User avatar
GT
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by GT » Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:59 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:31 pm
I went maskless in the grocery store today. They haven't had a sign on the door for a little while, so I figured I'd see what it felt like. I have to say, I felt like a criminal. I was the only person in the store without one. But I'm no longer any real danger to anyone else, nor they to me. So it's bleeping time. What a rebel I am! ;)
You are brave indeed - in my area it is still masks and 6 feet in all stores.

I am surprised the ever vigilant "double masked Karen" didn't spot you.

All joking aside - it will be a change to go back to no masks - I think some folks are really going to struggle with it.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:19 pm

GT wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:59 pm
All joking aside - it will be a change to go back to no masks - I think some folks are really going to struggle with it.
The power of behavioral conditioning.
barrett
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by barrett » Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:30 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:31 pm
I went maskless in the grocery store today.
Shrugged is our resident wild man! Where will the madness stop???
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by jalanlong » Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:30 pm

GT wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:59 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:31 pm
I went maskless in the grocery store today. They haven't had a sign on the door for a little while, so I figured I'd see what it felt like. I have to say, I felt like a criminal. I was the only person in the store without one. But I'm no longer any real danger to anyone else, nor they to me. So it's bleeping time. What a rebel I am! ;)
You are brave indeed - in my area it is still masks and 6 feet in all stores.

I am surprised the ever vigilant "double masked Karen" didn't spot you.

All joking aside - it will be a change to go back to no masks - I think some folks are really going to struggle with it.
Since the mask mandates went away here about a month ago I have frequented 3 local places with no mask signs up (a butcher shop, a grocery store and a restaurant). It varies each time I go in. Sometimes it is 50/50 mask wearing and sometimes almost everyone is wearing a mask. I do not wear one each time I go in. Someone has to be the one to start the ball rolling. Last year at this time it was strange to see someone walking around in a mask...now it is strange to see them without one. That has to change at some point.

It's like the scene in Jaws. Everyone is on the beach on July 4th but afraid to go into the water. The mayor has to plead with a person to go get in. After he does, more people start going in and then in a little while the entire beach is in the water having a good time! I mean yeah the shark came around later but still...
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by vnatale » Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:40 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:31 pm

I went maskless in the grocery store today. They haven't had a sign on the door for a little while, so I figured I'd see what it felt like. I have to say, I felt like a criminal. I was the only person in the store without one. But I'm no longer any real danger to anyone else, nor they to me. So it's bleeping time. What a rebel I am! ;)


Am I making the correct assumption that you say this because you've received the vaccines and are past the time period after receiving them?

The latest I've heard for those of us who have received the vaccines is that we are both less susceptible to catching it and, if we do, the consequences are far less severe. But we can catch it (albeit with little to no consequences) and be carriers to others who are still are susceptible.

What are the beliefs of others regarding what the vaccine process has bestowed upon us?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:17 pm

I believe it’s very hard for a vaccinated person to incubate much of a viral load to pass on to someone else.

Pugchief, I’m sure that masks are still required. But there wasn’t a sign so I just decided to go topless.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:57 am

IMG_1370.jpeg
IMG_1370.jpeg (142.83 KiB) Viewed 3418 times
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:23 am

tomfoolery wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:08 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:17 pm
I believe it’s very hard for a vaccinated person to incubate much of a viral load to pass on to someone else.
Yes, it's hard for a vaccinated person to pass a viral load on to someone else, as long as both people are outside and maintaining appropriate distance. Then, masks are not required. Otherwise, according to science, if you're in a group of people outside, even if everyone is vaccinated, masks are still required for safety.
I wonder if over time, people will remember all of the lies and exaggerations that have come out of the CDC supposedly for our own good.
I'm guessing not.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:42 am

I am wondering for those who lean toward the virus response has been overblown, what do you guys currently think of what's going on in Brazil and India?
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:46 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:42 am
I am wondering for those who lean toward the virus response has been overblown, what do you guys currently think of what's going on in Brazil and India?
It's impossible to really know until after this is all over. I think Brazil has been mostly hands off? Has India?

Here is a very well done interview with the guy who was in charge of Sweden's policy.
https://youtu.be/0017zNe7obo
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by jalanlong » Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm

I would be interested to see the correlation between poverty level and the destructiveness of Covid. In Brazil the poverty rate is over 25% and it’s over 60% in India. In my state of Texas the media made a lot of the high “case” rate here but in reality those numbers were heavily skewed towards the border towns like El Paso which also have very high poverty rates.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by vnatale » Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:04 pm

jalanlong wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm

I would be interested to see the correlation between poverty level and the destructiveness of Covid. In Brazil the poverty rate is over 25% and it’s over 60% in India. In my state of Texas the media made a lot of the high “case” rate here but in reality those numbers were heavily skewed towards the border towns like El Paso which also have very high poverty rates.


For what reasons would you think there is a correlation between economic demographics and how the virus affected each demographic group.

I'm not disputing your assessment. Just looking for your reasons why you believe this way.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by jalanlong » Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:27 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:04 pm
jalanlong wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
I would be interested to see the correlation between poverty level and the destructiveness of Covid. In Brazil the poverty rate is over 25% and it’s over 60% in India. In my state of Texas the media made a lot of the high “case” rate here but in reality those numbers were heavily skewed towards the border towns like El Paso which also have very high poverty rates.
For what reasons would you think there is a correlation between economic demographics and how the virus affected each demographic group.

I'm not disputing your assessment. Just looking for your reasons why you believe this way.
Well I first came to that thought last year when the counties that were most struggling with Covid in Texas were poorer counties. For example, I live in Collin County which has a 4% poverty rate. Bexar County in South Texas has a 30% poverty rate. Even though Bexar has only 80% of the population of Collin County, they had 4 times more Covid deaths but actually fewer "cases." So I started reading up and found several studies that indicated that with some exceptions, the data from the US seems to indicate that Covid disproportionately affects those on the lower end of the economic ladder.

The exceptions were densely populated areas like New York or other large cities. In those locations the virus tended to be distributed evenly. However, in less populated areas the virus affected the poor much worse. The theories given were that poorer people have less access to decent health care, were not in as good of health to begin with, had less ability to stay at home or work from home and had less access to testing equipment. That last one explains why my affluent county had so many more cases of Covid reported than Bexar but a lot fewer deaths. My neighbors were probably able to get tested easier and get treated or quarantine earlier if they were positive.

I have no idea if that theory holds for country by country comparisons. But it could be why a country like India is struggling so much.
Last edited by jalanlong on Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Mark Leavy » Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:49 pm

jalanlong wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:27 pm
... and had less access to testing equipment. That last one does explain why my affluent county had so many more cases of Covid reported than Bexar but a lot fewer deaths.
If your more affluent county did more testing, then it would clearly have more cases (meaning positive test results, whether the patient presents with symptoms or not). Hat tip to WiseOne. The counties that test less would only have cases when someone is symptomatic.

So, your county could easily have more cases with less deaths.
Post Reply