ESPN article on decisions to play

[S.CarolinaUte]

A very good article about how all 5 conferences came to their decision’s to shutdown/keep playing just came out on ESPN App. The most interesting part was the different medical views from very prestigious doctors and institutions. The belief that there is consensus among the medical world about covid is wrong. Very good Doctors on both sides of the debate.

[GameForAnyFuss]

There are a lot of unknowns with this virus, like with any new virus. I think the disagreements come down to unknowns and each individual’s/institution’s tolerance for risk.

[EagleMountainUte]

Michael Osterholm is who I have been following. He is recommending a second shut down. I don’t agree with that personally. I believe it will lead to potentially worst societal health problems. 

Article in the NY Times 8 days ago.

[Thlete]

Any doctor recommending a second shutdown is officially a quack in my book. Worst approach ever unless it’s over a 10% mortality or something more severe. Lockdown yourself if vulnerable or afraid but locking down the country for over 2 months was an atrocity.

[EagleMountainUte]

I really want to see an adjusted death rate. I feel like 10% to as high as 20% may be bad numbers. Then of course the nursing home deaths. Just because you contracted the virus inside a New York or Michigan nursing home, doubling as a “overflow” to the hospital. Then transported to the hospital to die makes no sense. 

Houston has been a good example of what needed to be done. 

[Utesbyfive]

Couldn’t agree more. The case fatality rate among healthy children and adults is very small. Sadly this picks off the old and unhealthy. Shutting down is an exercise in self-destruction. Targeted precautions are really all that is necessary. The media has everyone spun up into thinking this is a death sentence. It’s far from the truth.

[Charlie]

We need data on health of patients that die to know what our risks are.  We already know 43% in Utah come from assisted living.  But we also already know there are a great number of folks that are very infirmed, even on hospice care, that are cared for at home.  Additionally, there are many that have very significant health issues related to covid vulnerability and are not cared for by anyone.  Then there is obesity.  The million dollar question is, how many people not included above, die when contracting covid?  I believe age is secondary to these items.  We need to know the risk to our personal stratum, not the population at large to make decisions.  Do Hipaa rules or personal privacy make this data impossible or is it simply not reported?

Very effective risk management would suggest a focused firewall around the most vulnerable of a population rather than much the same firewall separating most individuals of a general population.   As we view very infrequent outcomes of covid, I am not sure they should be treated any different than infrequent outcomes of anything else that exists in our environment.  I think it is possible to be very caring for high risks individuals and helpful to those that chose to isolate as much as possible, all while we continue to maintain a normal life for those with minimal risks.  That would require us to listen, care, work together, and allow others to move on in ways we may chose not to do.  We still have yet to encounter all the risks of life outside the garden of eden.

[Author]

Posts