Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Coronavirus

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
. But I did hear a doctor say it needs prolonged contact.

Of course prolonged contact correlates well with infection rates.
More time together in the same house means more chances to get infected.

Now consider the case where one family member is at work all day and has contact with a new customer every 5 minutes all day long. Which scenario likely results in the higher infection rate?

Hint: I don't think that the "prolonged" contact needs to be with the same person
 
Young generations have it worse than old generations. More school shootings, depression, suicides, single parent homes, fewer job opportunities due to automation, an unsure future due to global warming, and possible runaway AI that could take over humanity. Existential threats such as unknown locations of nuclear weapons, possible meteor strike, possible world war or nuclear war, possible diseases more lethal than Covid. Natural disasters (drought, forest fires, hurricanes, etc). Less safety net. Out-of-reach home prices. The old generations had their pensions; they could buy a house on a modest salary; didn't even need a college degree. Look at Detroit in its heyday; that was America.

Not that I'm struggling much. I'm doing ok. But just pointing out the differences. It hit home one day. I was talking to my landlord. He was probably in his late 70s. We chatted often. He would mention his son a bit, but not a lot. The son had gone through a nasty divorce, wasn't doing well. I assumed that my generation (gen X) was better of than my LL's because they didn't have the internet, they had to fight wars, etc. But he said no, they had it easier. More opportunity. Less complicated. He owned many properties, built his little real estate empire from the ground up. That would be impossible today, to do it in the way he did it. It made sense. And way less divorce (he couldn't have made it without his wife). So many depressed single folks (yeah I'm one of them). It made sense the more I thought of it. There's a ton of unsureness and unease today, about the future. Many would-be parents don't even want to have kids now because the world they might inherent. That's just a sad, sad thing. Isn't it?
 
That's a lot of fuzzy math right there. And talk about sensationalism, wow you should work for CNN. 10% of Fortune 500 CEO's huh? that gave me a chuckle!

The MD's on the forum will tell you that the majority of ICU admissions lead to at least permanent injury or worse. (A CEO stuck on oxygen for the rest of his life isn't going to be a CEO for much longer).

Boomers and Gen X all have high-side ICU admissions of over 10%:

From the CDC:
upload_2020-4-16_1-22-35.png



If you have newer numbers (these are 4 weeks old) from a more credible source (than the CDC), by all means, bring it on. Please do - that WOULD actually be a useful contribution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kbM3
Of course prolonged contact correlates well with infection rates.
More time together in the same house means more chances to get infected.

Now consider the case where one family member is at work all day and has contact with a new customer every 5 minutes all day long. Which scenario likely results in the higher infection rate?

Hint: I don't think that the "prolonged" contact needs to be with the same person

That's exactly what I was alluding to. And it is an open question.

Let's use those 2 scenarios:

What are your chances of getting it if you spend 24/7 at home with an infected (prolong contact, 1 contact)
VS
your chances of getting if if you spend 5 minutes with several infected within a day? (short duration contact, but many contacts)

I don't think there is consensus in the medical/scientific/academic communities. Seems like it's not even discussed much. Would love to know the answer.
 
In Santa Clara County as of today, those between the ages of 41-60 that have tested positive represent 35% of those cases. That age group also has a 20% chance of dying from CV19, so a 1 in 5 chance if you tested positive you would have died. Not great odds if you ask me. Age of many parents.

We are still learning so much about this disease and some of those that have recovered have reported a variety of issues they are still experiencing after leaving the hospital. With lung, heart and kidney damage they are now in a higher risk category from any future illness. No one is too young to die from this really. There have been cases of new born babies dying too: 6-week-old baby's death linked to coronavirus, believed to be one of the youngest fatalities; First Baby in Connecticut Dies From COVID-19; First US infant death linked to COVID-19 reported in Illinois | Live Science. People need to limit their contacts right now and do what they can to follow the restrictions health and governments have put in place. Waiting out the infection period and treating those we can will pay off until we have a vaccine. Being cavalier that you’re young and not at risk is foolish. The fact you can just as easily spread it is a known fact.
 
Last edited:
The MD's on the forum will tell you that the majority of ICU admissions lead to at least permanent injury or worse. (A CEO stuck on oxygen for the rest of his life isn't going to be a CEO for much longer).

Boomers and Gen X all have high-side ICU admissions of over 10%:

From the CDC:
View attachment 532904


If you have newer numbers (these are 4 weeks old) from a more credible source (than the CDC), by all means, bring it on. Please do - that WOULD actually be a useful contribution.
What I was amused by was your completely arbitrary fanciful assumption that 10% of CEO's will get this disease. Where did you come up with that?
We saw the leader of the mighty British Empire get the disease and they are fine. So I'm not concerned about CEO's whatsoever.

Boomers and Gen X have very different concerns on this. Boomers are at much higher risk.
Let's look at the 40-49 age range. CFR is about .4%. Now, that's if you get it. Your chances of getting it are what... I don't know... for shits and giggles let's say 50%... then a 40-49 yr old has a total chance of death by Covid of what... .2% ?

I'm not saying that that's insignificant. But I'm more worried about dying from many other things. The fear of various causes of death probably varies widely from person to person. My grandfather died of a heart attack, so that's my fear. If cancer runs in one's family, that would be a logical fear.
CFR corona.jpg
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bkp_duke
  • Informative
Reactions: dqd88
In Santa Clara County as of today, those between the ages of 41-60 that have tested positive represent 35% of those cases. That age group also has a 20% chance of dying from CV19, so a 1 in 5 chance if you tested positive you would have died. Not great odds if you ask me. Age of many parents.

We are still learning so much about this disease and some of those that have recovered have reported a variety of issues they are still experiencing after leaving the hospital. With lung, heart and kidney damage they are now in a higher risk category from any future illness. No one is too young to die from this really. There have been cases of new born babies dying too: 6-week-old baby's death linked to coronavirus, believed to be one of the youngest fatalities; First Baby in Connecticut Dies From COVID-19; First US infant death linked to COVID-19 reported in Illinois | Live Science. People need to limit their contacts right now and do what they can to follow the restrictions health and governments have put in place. Waiting out the infection period and treating those we can will pay off until we have a vaccine. Being cavalier that you’re young and not at risk is foolish. The fact you can just as easily spread it is a known fact.
20% sounds way off for 41-60. Source?
Please stop sensationalizing. A baby dies - that is an anecdote. We could point out horrible car accidents and thousands of other horrible deaths from various causes. Just stop. The fact is, it is extremely rare for a child to die from Covid. That is absolute fact.
 
20% sounds way off for 41-60. Source?
Please stop sensationalizing. A baby dies - that is an anecdote. We could point out horrible car accidents and thousands of other horrible deaths from various causes. Just stop. The fact is, it is extremely rare for a child to die from Covid. That is absolute fact.

it happens and not sensationalizing. Just reality it can happen at any age so not something to pretend hasn’t happened. As for Santa Clara County dashboards:

4D14D523-E8B2-45E5-9A74-9183315BA0F1.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Lessmog
...41-60 ...That age group also has a 20% chance of dying from CV19, so a 1 in 5 chance if you tested positive you would have died. Not great odds if you ask me. Age of many parent.....

Where is your source, only 1 fatality for a fifty something yr old in Oz.
Screenshot_2020-04-16-18-59-40~2.png

Others more skilled than I could make a list, but 40-59 is still sitting pretty here. Eyeball its 1:1850

Pretty sure for that age group suicide and accidental death will remain far far greater than covid19. And a poorly measured covid19 response would exacerbate that.
 
it happens and not sensationalizing. Just reality it can happen at any age so not something to pretend hasn’t happened. As for Santa Clara County dashboards:
View attachment 532907
That is not the death rate my friend. That is the % that each group makes up relative to the whole. In other words, of all deaths, 6% of them come from the 41-50 age group for Santa Clara. Very different than death rate, which is under 1% for said age group.

I implore you to learn to read these stats accurately. Misreading them is causing undue fear.
 
Where is your source, only 1 fatality for a fifty something yr old in Oz.
View attachment 532906
Others more skilled than I could make a list, but 40-59 is still sitting pretty here. Eyeball its 1:1850

Pretty sure for that age group suicide and accidental death will remain far far greater than covid19. And a poorly measured covid19 response would exacerbate that.
He was reading "Deaths by Age Group" as "Death Rate by Age Group" - 2 different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EinSV
What I was amused by was your completely arbitrary fanciful assumption that 10% of CEO's will get this disease. Where did you come up with that?
We saw the leader of the mighty British Empire get the disease and they are fine. So I'm not concerned about CEO's whatsoever.

Boomers and Gen X have very different concerns on this. Boomers are at much higher risk.
Let's look at the 40-49 age range. CFR is about .4%. Now, that's if you get it. Your chances of getting it are what... I don't know... for shits and giggles let's say 50%... then a 40-49 yr old has a total chance of death by Covid of what... .2% ?

The numbers you quoted are even older than the ones I did.

I'll be the first to admit we don't have recent per-age CFR's. But we do know from London, New York and Seattle, and anecdotally on TMC that ICU admissions have about a 50% fatality rate, and another 25% of people who would never go off some form of respirator again. So taking the CDC ICU numbers from above and multiplying by 75% is as good of an estimate of injured that we have right now for total injury rate (until there is more up to date data).

Why would the infection rate only be 50% in your altruistic "Let's sacrifice ourselves for our Children" model? Do you know anybody who doesn't average at least 1 cold/flu a year? A cold is also a coronavirus (well, sometimes).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bkp_duke
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bkp_duke