MSU bar source for 85+ person outbreak
Surprised this hasn’t been posted - title says it all.
Hard to see how any college town can avoid these types of outbreaks.
Things still look bleak
Back to you Jim
Meh - I'm sure MSU bars have years of experience dealing with outbreaks of communicable diseases.
At this point why are we going through all these lengths to isolate the people it doesn’t affect? Send everyone under 65 to college, put 65+ in a bubble, we’ll be done with this in 3 weeks.
Also, bleach shots
It’s because some of the people who went to the bar also went to Grosse Pointe some time later and hosted a group of people, effectively infecting an entirely new community of people who may be at higher risk.
Secondly, age is not as big of a cut off for being at a high risk population for COVID. The bigger risk factor is number of co-morbidities which is not age dependent.
Maybe I’m ignorant but don’t those things basically identify the same thing? I mean, older people are vastly more susceptible than younger people for having co-morbidities. Seems like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other and the deaths by age most definitely bear that out.
I don't know that you are ignorant but age and susceptibility are not the same things. While the older a person is the more likely they are to have co-morbidities, age itself is not an absolute for vulnerability. There are people that are 65 and older who have taken care of their health, have strong genetics and are not overweight. They would likely survive should they get this virus. Similarly, there are people under 65 who are not in good health (lifestyle, genetics or both) and are very susceptible to having a bad outcome if they get the virus. Drawing a line at 65 and saying that determines your rights as an individual is not appropriate. At some point, people need to take responsibility for themselves and determine what their level of risk is and how to act.
So then the risky people should stay home, and the not-at-risk people can go out, right?
Why don't we just have the high risk people stay away from the low risk people? I dont think its that hard.
Getting people to wear masks in stores is hard.
Separating everyone with asthma, diabetes, obesity, immuno deficiencies or are 65+ from the rest of the population is not that hard? OK.
Ok, so get the healthy people to wear masks in stores. And tell the unhealthy people to avoid high-risk situations.
It would be great if everyone (a) knew what group they fell into, (b) could easily identify each other and make proper accommodations, and (c) not engage in parts of society where those two groups could possible interact via an intermediary, but since the simple request to wear masks in public has caused swaths of the population to lose their collective shit, expecting this level of cooperation is impossible.
"Why don't we just have the high risk people stay away from the low risk people?" Because 40% of American adults are obese (source: CDC).
I'm Big Boned Damnit!
You appear to be a high risk person due to your ignorance.
Ignorance as a high risk comorbidity....i like it and so true at least for infection/exposure.
Being sick is bad and being stupid is bad. But being sick and stupid is lethal.
Are you not-at-risk people going to pay my wages while I stay home? I'll sign up for that.
I’d prefer that than handing everyone another $3k
Jesus how many times does this have to be repeated?
This attached CDC guidance provides info on hospitalizations by age.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html
That’s great. Now can you show us one that breaks it down by co-morbidity?
I imagine if you searched, you could find something.
There are many things that I’ve said on here that may be neg worthy, being snippy when someone suggests that I should go look for data to get at a point he is interested doesn’t seem high on that list to me.
Listed co-morbidities for this illness include smoking, diabetes, pregnancy, obesity, heart conditions, asthma... if you add up all of them 45% of all adults have at least one. Good luck segregating all those folks and then running the economy on the folks that are left.
Even for the people who don’t have one personally, how many of them have a spouse or children that have at least one of those? Even though I’m part of the 55%, my wife is not. While I personally would be fine, my pregnant wife would be part of the 45% that is vulnerable.
and that really highlights the issue throughout this whole process. Too many people with the mindset of, “well I’m fine, so what’s the big deal?”
As opposed to segregating everybody and still trying to run the economy?
Thank you for showing us data and not putting some sort of bend on it. We all can decide what that means for ourselves.
Do you know what the rates are for flu so I have something to compare it to?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
Here is a link for some CDC data for 2018/2019. They did not have a table that I could easily figure out how to embed. They also did not break it out into as many age groups:
0 to 4 - 128.9
5 to 17 - 39.2
18 to 49 - 48.4
50 to 64 -155.1
65+ - 532.9
I’m not confident about how comparable these numbers are and how they should be compared. First, they are absolute numbers comparing a full flu season to an ongoing pandemic. Second, I have no ideas if the way they are calculated is comparable,
These numbers are comparable in that they're hospitalizations per 100,000 people. So the calculations appear to be the same there. One difference is that flu data is usually tabulated at the end of a season based on excess hospitalizations and deaths, not necessarily lab confirmed cases. So in that sense, it's not apples to apples. Most estimates of excess deaths so far for Covid suggest the real number is about 25% higher. My guess is that hospitalizations would be at least that much higher as well.
Also, these are for a full flu season though, and we aren't at the same point in this pandemic to be able to say it's been through a full "season" especially since shutdowns have drawn it out.
One thing to point out though, is that this is FAR, FAR less dangerous amongst young people than the flu. Thank goodness for that.
When the data is all tabulated.
Well for one the flu doesn’t kill 120,000 Americans in three months.
H1N1 of 1918 now feels slighted....
The fact that COVID has killed 1.5-2 flu seasons worth of people despite intentionally crashing the economy and turning every nursing home into an off limits bio-zone for the general public should be enough.
Also consider that pretty mush all of these deaths are happening in spring and summer when we have all of the environmental factors on our side.
You remind me of my idiotic co-workers. I'll get to them in a second.
First: You think it would be easy to do a binary age-based sort on the population? Do you think all 65+ people live and work wholly apart from everyone else?
Second: COVID-19 risk isn't binary. There are degrees of risk (depending on age, underlying conditions, etc.).
Back to my idiotic co-workers: Our office is set to open in late July. I'm looking forward to working with nicer equipment (faster computer, multiple monitors). I'm a cheapskate and my home rig is inferior.
I haven't heard the details yet. When they were being discussed on a "Teams" meeting the first questions from my co-workers were about temperature checks and cleaning of surfaces. Fuck me. Neither are completely useless, but they're very "March 2020." It's mostly about airborne transmission.
Thanks, OP, for posting this news.
“At this point why are we going through all these lengths to isolate the people it doesn’t affect? Send everyone under 65 to college, put 65+ in a bubble, we’ll be done with this in 3 weeks.”
Man, these kinds of responses are so stupid. How do those “bubble people” get food? What if they need assistance around their home? What if they need to see a doctor and need transportation? The fact is they will come into contact with other people and the people they come in contact with may have been at that bar or they may have come into contact with someone at that bar.
Hell, they are LETTING you drink at a bar during a world wide pandemic and ALL that is being asked is to wear a mask when you’re out in public. Yet that is too much.
I mean, where is the outrage that you have to wear a shirt in a bar? Or that you can’t smoke in a restaurant? Or that you can’t have an open container on a sidewalk?
Nailed it.
Also, related to masks... I like to use the shoe comparison. You aren’t going to and most places won’t allow you to come in if you aren’t wearing shoes. Many shoes, including new ones, those that provide a level of protection (like steel toes), fashion and shoes like high heels are not comfortable and hurt your feet (and even your back), but there aren’t protests over shoe requirements.
But people are outraged over face masks?! It’s such selfish idiocy.
Lol what?! Who prefers walking around town barefoot?
The problem isn’t the masks. When I go out most people are wearing them. The problem is the inevitable lockdowns that will return when everyone is focused on rising case numbers instead of declining hospitalizations and deaths.
If we go back to lockdowns, liberties are going to be taken away anyway. Why wouldn’t we focus it to those that are high risk? I’ll wear a mask and my life doesn’t require me to visit hospitals or nursing homes. If you’re high risk and come in contact with me then that’s on you.
The problem isn’t the masks - Ric8057
My point shifted more to the macro than the OP but, still, this doesn't upset me as much as it seems to upset you. If any of these kids consistently volunteer at a hospital then there's an issue. If you're at risk and choose to join this crowd then that's on you.
Let it work its way through the healthy. Protect the at risk.
You seem to think that spreading between "non-vulnerable people" is fine - but it's not, because that means these healthy people are still going to spread it to others who are vulnerable. It's not realistic to think the 65 and over crowd can be completely isolated from the younger crowd in all circumstances, and also, you're completely ignoring the fact that younger, more or less healthy people have died from this.
Anyone who suggests "letting it spread" in any segment of the population is downright stupid, and harmful.
At this point if people like you are still making stupid comments like this, we are going to be fucked for the rest of the year. Just wear the damn mask, and don’t go to a bar.
Welp, there's another reason to not go into Harpers.
As if more were needed.
Unfortunately, this may become a common occurrence as colleges start back up this fall. Put whatever masking, cleaning, social distancing regulations you want in place, enough students will still find a way to group together recreationally to wreak havoc with the best laid plans.
Case in point: Dorms.
Thousands of students crammed into small rooms stacked on top of each other with the residents frequently circulating between rooms, engaging in various social activities, while sharing bathrooms, dining halls, study lounges and other common areas. No amount of preventative measures is going to be able to stop a virus from flourishing there.
Schools are either going to have to just bite the bullet and open up in the fall while telling students and parents that there is only so much they can do and an outbreak is very possible, even likely. Or they need to just cancel large group in person classes and on campus living indefinitely.
This half assed, we’re opening with a “measured approach” for safety isn’t doesn’t do anything but give us the worst of both worlds; where it really doesn’t do a lot to stem the spread while also making it very likely things will have to shut down at a later date when a major outbreak happens.
I hate that it’s come to this but schools are at the point where it’s gotta be all or nothing. Either they open up with whatever safety protocols they choose to use, and let students and parents decide to take the risk, or they shut it down until it is deemed safe to return in person.
Both choices suck and I have no idea what one I would pick if I were in that position.
The problem is that at almost every school there will be students with health issues that are at risk to say nothing about older professors/employees. These students will also be circulating among the community as the school is not an island that can be isolated.
Outside of a university setting, there are lots of older public and private school teachers teaching grades K-12. There are discussions in many communities that teachers may not be willing to return to a classroom setting with students likely to become infected.
There are lots of older and overweight football coaches...just saying.
I'm just going to throw this out there, but it would seem that whether school is in session or not, college aged Americans will be gathering in large groups regardless. Other than people like myself (who used all of my free time in college to play Starcraft and Warcraft), college aged kids are not going to isolate themselves just because bars are closed and schools aren't in session. Right? I mean, by all means I think that large organized gatherings of any kind need to be severely limited, but I'm not expecting that to make much of a dent in the overall number of cases.
It's better for them to gather in groups of, say, 10-12 people than in a bar that has 100+. And informal gatherings often happen outdoors.
And it’s probably safer for their parents if they are off at school as opposed to being at home. This notion that 65 is some magic age demarcating the start of “at-risk” is just wrong. Risk gradually gets worse as your age increases.
Like another poster said, you realistically can't stop spread on a university campus with any level of "openness". Seems like the best that could be done is to open campus 100% (sports and other mass gatherings are a different matter) and give students the choice to come back or not. Then pour resources into providing as fulfilling of an online experience as possible to students that can't or do not wish to come back to campus this fall.
Professors and staff also have to be given a choice to come back in person or not, you just can't force people to take that kind of risk. It won't be 100%, but it won't be 0% either. Those that are not comfortable work with the university to prepare as fulfilling a remote experience as possible. Video office hours, etc.
Also universities should be stocking up on masks, mandate them in all university buildings, and hand them out for free in front of every classroom. Not that it'll do a ton given the extracurriculars that students will participate in, but at least make sure everyone has access to unlimited masks for those students that come back but want to be careful.
On the broad scale, this isn't the worst solution. The devil is in the details. If a 50 yr old prof with diabetes doesn't feel comfortable coming back, what happens to that prof's salary (assuming the prof is teaching-dependent)?
If you open, you have to make all reasonable (and some unreasonable) attempts to limit covid or else you are opening your institution up for a ton of lawsuits. Even if they would be frivolous, they'll take time/money/settlements.
Not only do you have to determine a planned scenario by roughly July 1, then you have to enact it. For example: dorms at half capacity (what does that mean for your pre-hired RAs? Half the students in lecture halls--will some watch online? How much will a plexiglass barrier for profs cost? What will be the consequence for a student who takes off a mask and talks right in a prof's (or other student's) face? And so on.
I really wonder how many college students will take a year off. My daughter who would be a freshman got a nannying job and deferred for a year. She knows others who are going to community college for a year (if your plan was to go to an in-school, state school, this is a really economical option - credits generally transfer, classes are cheaper).