Yes, there were over 2,500 deaths yesterday versus the 1,900 a month ago. Deaths in New York are down a lot, but that is being offset by increases in other parts of the country.

Too early to answer that clearly. The average stats have dipped a little, probably. They vary a lot per day, which is really more about reporting.

The old hotspots have calmed down a bit, but new ones have been rising.

Illinois 136 yesterday and 138 today, vast majority Cook County (Chi)


what's raising the most alarm is that the average time from contraction to death is 20 days. The Illinois stay-at-home order went into effect March 21, so we are more than two "death cycles" distant from that.

which means it is continuing to spread despite everything being shut down.

there are only so many nurses and first-responders in that mix, so people are still getting it environmentally at grocery stores and so forth

I saw people playing football the other day. Not everyone is taking it seriously, unfortunately.

Did Illinois ever really shut down though? You guys never even restricted construction and acted like everything was business as usual, now it's coming back to bite.

Chicago is definitely under stay at home order and even the parks are closed, which isn’t the case in most places. But the numbers also aren’t high.

So 91% of deaths are of people 60 and over. This population makes up like 16% of the country. Why are 20 year olds being banned from college classrooms? LOL

SCIENCE!

Acted like everything was business as usual...based on construction not being banned? What other example do you have to support that point?

I can't tell if you're joking but I'll answer as if you're not. If otherwise, forgive me for responding like you're 12.

Because:
A. If younger people get it, they'll carry it to the older people. Most sheltered people interact with non-sheltered people.
B. It's still dangerous for younger people, just less so.
C. If the number of serious cases gets above a certain level, the death rate per case goes way up.
D. We've never had enough PPE for essential workers, let alone the general public.
E. Getting the numbers way down will mean we might be able to start responding to individual breakouts vs. focusing on rules for everyone.
F. And so on.

In any case, posts like yours are against the rules, and I'm guessing it'll be deleted.

A. It’s the responsibility of those younger people to not interact with older people unless they are also isolating themselves.
B. This is false unless they have underlying health conditions, including obesity. Or at least the risk is so low that applying the same risk avoidance standard would preclude most daily activities, like getting behind the wheel of a car.
C. This can be monitored, but the risk of overwhelming the health system appears to have passed.
D. Most people don’t need PPE.
E. This will only be possible with comprehensive testing, which isn’t going to be feasible.
F. Not an argument.


And why on earth is his post against the rules? There’s no link to a bogus source, no ad hominem attack, and nothing “offensive”.

Oh yes, Chicago is normal. Perfectly normal, nobody even notices the pandemic. Oh good lord, dude. You're 110% flat-out wrong on this one. You've not seen photos of virtually empty streets in the Loop? Closed parks? No Lakefront trail? Close to empty L Trains and buses? Everyone under a mask order for any situation where 6 foot distancing isn't likely? Only take-out and delivery options for restaurants? No bars? No pretty much everything other than groceries and household staples?

Wow, yeah, Chicago is normal, all right. :(

As for 10023, you don't think our numbers are still high? 3000 new cases, 130+ deaths just yesterday? The vast majority being in Cook County? Nah, just statistical noise. Sheesh.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Your discourse is always evolving. As Covid-19 deaths skyrocketed, you've became more "sophisticated" abandoning the "old people must die" on March to a more palatable posts, pretending to be reasonable and decent.

Forecasts for 2020 growth (European Comission):

Sweden: -6.1%
Denmark: -5.9%

Careless policies resulted in an even worse economic performance. And as Denmark and Norway put the outbreak under control and are resuming activities, their economy will probably even better for the rest of 2020 while Sweden are still dealing with 100 deaths daily.

Idk, it seems like Illinois has taken relatively restrictive measures to bend the curve, but I still cannot stop peaking. It's hard to blame people coming outside at every warm up since it's happens everywhere in the US but some states' number are more under control. I'm hoping things will start to change by the end of the month.

That is a forecast, not actuals. And nobody can accurately forecast what is going to happen right now, so it's pretty worthless as well. What if Denmark and Norway have a second wave and Sweden doesn't? Is Sweden just pulling the bandaid off quickly and Denmark and Norway are delaying the inevitable? We don't know. You don't know. Why do you act like you know?

Is there anyplace in the US that is saying don't go outside? I haven't heard of one.

How about almost everywhere? #StaySafeStayHome and all that crap?

I think Chicago even closed parks and the lakefront; if that isn't saying "don't go outside", then what is?

Chicago closed the lakefront trail because of overcrowding, but other city parks have remained open, at least the ones by me.

I've been taking my kids out on bike rides on the northshore channel trail (which goes through several city and suburban parks) 3 - 4x per week for the past several weeks without issue. We find big open fields away from other people and let our little ones run out their excess energy.

We also frequently walk over to the athletic field at the school a block south of us to let them run around and do active stuff as well, though sometimes it gets a little crowded and we have to wait for our "turn". all of the parents in our neighborhood seem to understand how important it is for everyone's sanity to let young children run around and be wild and crazy and loud.

It's been a lifesaver.

You're using guy-on-street logic. To borrow from the people who actually know things:

A. You can't separate the young from the old unless they go to separate islands. There will be cross-contamination, starting with service staff. PPE and social distancing are partial measures, particularly when people come into direct contact.

B. The young are at risk for a variety of reasons including hidden conditions.

C. The risk of overwhelming the system has diminished for now...because we shut things down. This is one reason why partial reopening is starting to make sense.

D. Most people DO need PPE to avoid the situations in A, B, C, etc.

E. The ability to track and respond to localized outbreaks instead of mass-rules...doing it well requires a lot of testing, but a moderate level of social distancing, PPE, and basic temperature checks can lower that bar. This is a basic point behind why we're trying to get things to a lower level currently.

I know you're trolling but it is not only fatal to younger people when they have health issues. A child on Long Island just died today, in fact. And, considering that he was training for tryouts with the NFL, I would bet $10,000 that this guy was in better shape than you before he died: https://bgcmonmouth.org/2020/04/17/a...e-simon-press/

Anecdotes do not change the underlying statistics that show healthy young people have nothing to worry about.

^This is a nonsensical statement. Statistics do not change the fact that young healthy people CAN die from it and HAVE died from it.

Young healthy people CAN die from and HAVE died from being struck by lightning, eaten by sharks, automobile accidents, the flu, and a million other causes. The odds of dying from such causes are so low that we tend to go about our normal life without living in fear.

The forcing of all young people to stay home, with many losing their jobs and livelihoods, over something that they are statistically not at material risk for, is what 10023 is questioning.

According to ihearthed, if you don’t 100% agree with him you’re trolling.

Emblematic of what’s wrong with discourse today at a larger level

I know what he's questioning. I'm saying it's stupid. I'm pretty confident that I can drive as fast as I want without killing myself, but we all seem to understand why there are speed limits. We force people to do shit every day out of the interest of public health.

Precisely because we don't know, society should be cautious, buying time to get prepared. An actual: as today, Denmark and Norway are far more successful protecting their population and ending their outbreak earlier.

I know it's all about trolling, political radicalism, misanthropy, etc. but let's argue:

Covid-19 death rates are at 0.5%-1.0%, depending on the country's age pyramid and health systems working. By doing nothing, not even social distancing, the virus could reach the entire population within 3 months, killing between 1.5 million to 3.0 million people in the US alone. The actual number would probably be higher as millions of people would get very ill and would receive no treatment whatsoever.

Could the US cope to those numbers? Would the US economy be normal in such scenario?

Every year I read about a young athlete dropping dead during training. Of course young can die, you will never prevent that.

nevermind

In Illinois, 14% of deaths are below age 60, and 31% are below age 70.

Ah, you know about this famous quote by Benjamin Franklin.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Then they get none of the 2, I think he added.

This whole debate is about taking risk versus seeking safety. It's always worth taking some risk when it's wisely assessed, but no one should act arrogant to mother nature or science, or they'll be harshly punished, if not humiliated in the end.

For now, the wisest and obvious deal is probably to keep elders at home, so they don't stupidly die for a tiny ugly virus. Old people often have some rather interesting purchasing power, huh. So they are significant consumers to the economy. It would be too bad to lose too many of them.
And people under age 60 need to go back to their occupations, or the economy would end up completely ruined, which would kill countless people.

Guess that's about it.

In London, cycling has never been more popular. I rode about 30 miles today across the city, and you can basically join pelotons and draft behind people the whole way.

Parks also very full. People are observing social distancing, but you can’t keep Brits at home when it’s 75 and sunny.

And how many below 50 and not obese?

Yes, absolutely, given the demographics affected. Losing a million retirees would have very little impact relative to the current lockdown measures.

Case numbers are irrelevant and no, 130 deaths per day in a state with 13 million people is not something that justifies such a dramatic response.

Yes, 130 deaths per day does not justify such a dramatic response. The predicted ~100,000 deaths that would occur in the state on the way to herd immunity on the other hand...

I tend to agree, let young people go about their business

this is getting ridiculous

I think they don't even really know whether having been infected once would make you immune for good. It's not like any well known childhood sickness.

That's the whole problem about that virus. They keep telling us they're learning about it every day, but it's still actually widely unknown. Like it's a brand new mean thing that was released out of nowhere in the middle of China just 6 months ago.

Virologists and epidemiologists are upset over here, arguing like restless kids on a playground in the media, then people as the government are freaking out, 'cause it's such a sneaky vicious thing.

There's something sure about it. If you are in a decent health condition, the probability for you to die from it is very thin, close to nil. Tens of millions of people around the world might have been infected already without even noticing. That must be taken into account too.

sat in a bit of evening rush hour traffic in st. louis coming back from southern illinois. i didnt expect this...while st. louis city and county remain in a lockdown the state has opened and it is having some effect in the center of the st louis region. the restaurants in places like cape girardeau are allegedly packed tonight.

I encountered a traffic slow down today coming home, it’s been picking up more and more all week. I even experienced a sig alert on Wednesday which took me an hour and a half to get home. Since the shutdown I was making it home in 30 minutes, thankfully I’ve been working at home 50% of the time and next week I’ll be teleworking again, yay.

But some kid died!!! Lock down everything forever. I can’t compute statistics but I know that there’s stories of random healthy people dying from this, so keep everything shut indefinitely.

It sounds like some people can only conceive an either-or scenario.

How about a version of business assistance and wage assistance that takes away most of the financial pain, which some countries are doing better than we are?

With that out of the way, 10023 doesn't need to be ok with killing a million retirees.

You know, if we didn't half-ass our lockdowns, we'd probably have mostly eradicated COVID-19 in the US by now.

We'd certainly have knocked it down to a more manageable level.

The US seems to be too "me first" at the personal level to weather a crisis like this, and too scattered on the policy level.

It wouldn’t be anywhere near that high even if everyone got it. And much lower if you just lock down elderly homes, advise old people to isolate (and discourage visits from family), and other more targeted and reasonable measures.

People who are actually vulnerable are doing risky things anyway. Again, I see old people walking with grandkids every time I go to the park. That is a problem, not restaurants.

They don’t know if it’s “for good” but it has been confirmed that antibodies confer resistance. The question is how long they last, but it’s usually years.

The cases you’ve read about with people testing negative and then positive again were based on false positives, because PCR testing picked up fragments of dead virus still floating around in the body.

And not just business but play as well. You can’t have one without the other or people will go postal, not to mention the fact that all of those things (leisure, hospitality, travel) sustain millions of jobs as well.

I work with healthcare businesses for a living. Those staff would be under isolation orders and subject to testing, just as they are currently, with all of the success and failure of the current situation.

The risk to young people is de minimis, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.

Different rules for different people. Your island analogy is the right one, but figuratively. If you are old or vulnerable, stay home. If you work with the old or vulnerable, stay home. If you have old or vulnerable family whom you plan to interact with, stay home. If you are none of these things, go out and catch it so we can be done with this before we waste an entire year (i.e., summer). The Swedish approach is the right one.

Well, the rules of quarantine as they were defined over or around here (Spain, France, Italy) were pretty strict, even comparable to some sort of mad dictatorship in my opinion, and it is not eradicated yet.

We've only succeeded in slowing down the epidemic, which is yet something. That's what caregivers required from us all, so they could manage the crisis in a decent condition.

I don't really know about the Spaniards or the Italians, but I think the French in general took it seriously and tried their best to act as disciplined people. This shows that in spite of extreme individualism widespread over society, we're still able to come together when something serious is at stake (public health in this case), which is obviously a good thing.

However, it has to be lifted now. It's been for 2 months and some of us would go really crazy if it had to last any longer. Quarantine is just not good for one's mental health. Lol.