In NY...almost 70% of Coronavirus hospital patients stayed at home.

1. 82

   Readmikenowposted 5 years ago

   What are we to take away from this new statistic?
   
   “Cuomo says it’s ‘shocking’ most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home
   
   “The preliminary data was from 100 New York hospitals involving about 1,000 patients, Cuomo said at his daily briefing.
   
   It shows that 66% of new admissions were from people who had largely been sheltering at home. The next highest source of admissions was from nursing homes, 18%.”
   
   https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov- … -home.html
   
   FYI...same story facts can be found from mulitiple sources. I chose CNN so liberals can't say I used a “right wing” publication.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Damn Mike, that is a very thought-provoking thought! (hehe).
      
      What could it mean? Relative to "stay-at-home," I would consider myself in that category. I only venture out for necessities; groceries, pharmacy, etc. If I assume NY's stay-at-home folks are the same, could that mean the virus is out there 'all-over-the-place' just waiting for us to touch something?
      
      I think this factoid is a big deal. I can only hope more is done to understand this apparent anomaly. If staying at home isn't a solution, then what is?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Ever read about "herd immunity"?  It's the reason Sweden locked down nothing. 
         
         "As the rest of the world has hunkered down to weather the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden has remained remarkably open. The government has taken steps like issuing guidelines for Swedes to stay home, banning gatherings of more than 50 people and closing museums. Yet restaurants, schools and parks remain open. Consequently, Sweden’s ambassador to the U.S., Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter, said the country’s capital, Stockholm, could reach herd immunity sometime this month.
         Herd immunity is how a society collectively fights off infections to keep the transmission of disease low. The Swedish approach may sound appealing in countries like the U.S., where lockdown measures have crippled the economy. But remaining open has had costs, with elderly people making up 86 percent of Sweden’s more than 2,000 deaths so far. And scientists are still unsure whether individuals who have recovered from the novel coronavirus are immune to further infection — much less whether entire populations can keep the disease from reaching their most vulnerable members."
         
         https://www.discovermagazine.com/health … t-covid-19

         replyreport
         1. 0

            La Veeztaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I have heard about herd immunity. I also was told when my aunt went into a nursing home that the average length of life after entering a nursing home was about 14 months. One quarter of all deaths in the United States occur in nursing homes, and that figure was expected to rise to 40 percent by the year 2020,
            While the average length of stay before death was 13.7 months, the median was five months. Fifty-three percent of nursing home residents in the study died within six months.
            
            In light of these facts that no one reports on in the media it makes you wonder exactly what the real deaths from Covid19 are. How many of those people would have died within days, weeks or months anyway!
            
            Which begs the question, is it worth shutting down the whole country and ruining businesses, healthy lives, destroying the economy!

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               You raise a very valid question.  I have the same question.  I don't know if we will get answers any time soon.

               replyreport
         2. 84

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes I have heard of "herd immunity" and Sweden's tactics. But I am unsure of what to think about either.
            
            It appears safe to believe, (by the data being presented), that Covid-19 is most serious to older folks and those with other health issues, and maybe not much worse than catching a cold for most folks. This tells me that "herd immunity" has no value for those most at risk from this virus.
            
            It also appears that the most dangerous thing—generally speaking, about this virus is its apparent ease of transmission and durability in a non-host environment. Meaning how long it can linger in the air and live on surfaces. With what we think we now know, I think that is its most dangerous aspect and a reason to support some of the lockdown rules.
            
            However, I am beginning to think our across-the-board lockdown may have been as equally effective, (death-wise), if it had been more specifically directed.
            
            As for Sweden . . . I think it is too early to judge their actions. At this point, their mortality numbers aren't so supportive of their actions. But their economic numbers are. Later will be the time to judge the 'deaths vs. economic damage' choice. But I am rooting for them, I think their decisions may turn out to have been reasonable choices.
            
            GA

            replyreport
2. 74

   abwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   Mike, we should take away that it is time to run away from home!

   replyreport