Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Beaver Lodge -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (2237)

12/14/2020 4:18:39 PM

From: RetiredNow

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2936

Well, Jack, I'm being curmudgeonly because I'm getting old. LOL. That's what we old farts do. Now, having said that. I'm not a big fan of looking at case counts. We have evidence that most of the PCR tests for COVID use cycles in excess of 35, which leads to very high false positive rates. So it is a leading indicator of sorts, but it is a faulty one that tends to be long on fear value and short on scientific validity. I like to look at the lagging indicator on this pandemic instead, since it is a bit more reliable: # of deaths. However, even this one is VERY inconsistent around the world. Sweden tends to measure it best, but the US tends to lump everything that might be COVID into our COVID death count. The CDC has a paper published recently that I read that claimed that up to a third of the deaths are really not COVID caused, but deaths where COVID was also present, but another co-morbidity was the real root cause. Be that as it may, I look to the deaths and that number has been trending up for awhile now. So not good.

However, what's interesting about deaths is that, according to the CDC, they continue to average 76 years old and the average co-morbidity = 2.6 on those who died of COVID. I looked up the latest data on the CDC's website and I found that of the people who died, below were their age groupings. Your chances of death below 25 years of age is very small and this is just an analysis of actual deaths. But if you take into account the infectious mortality rate, your chances are even smaller, because an estimated 80% of people who get COVID are largely asymptomatic.

All Ages	261,530	%age	Cum %
Under 1 year	29	0.0%	100.0%
1-4 years	17	0.0%	100.0%
5-14 years	46	0.0%	100.0%
15-24 years	449	0.2%	100.0%
25-34 years	1,909	0.7%	99.8%
35-44 years	4,917	1.9%	99.1%
45-54 years	13,080	5.0%	97.2%
55-64 years	31,973	12.2%	92.2%
65-74 years	55,985	21.4%	80.0%
75-84 years	70,815	27.1%	58.5%
85 years and over	82,310	31.5%	31.5%

Anyway, it is important to look at the data so we understand how to approach this thing in a nuanced way. Draconian lockdowns have massive adverse consequences and the costs of it to mental and physical health exceed the good we are doing. It is far better to focus on those who are truly at risk and quarantine them, while letting everyone else who has minuscule risk to go about their business normally, while being careful around those who are at risk. As for vaccination, I'd go first to vaccinate the older folks, then the front line workers at hospitals, then essential and critical workers, including those in small businesses, and then I'd get the white collar and large business workers, and then the very last folks that I'd vaccinate would be the folks younger than 45. But lockdowns for everyone? No. The data science does not support a drastic measure like that. It makes politicians feel like they are courageous and doing something grand, but it is highly destructive and simply no sustainable over the long run. We need to think long run here.