RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

There is an underlying American policy issue here that could stand some discussion - the amount of medical treatment given to Septuagenarians, Octogenarians, and Nonagenarians. The health profession that we are attempting to protect is most vulnerable when they are treating the very old. The cost/benefit to society is very high when you lose a healthcare or emergency responder for several really old people.

The laws, payments systems, and training all encourage heroic and expensive treatments for those in their last 10% of life.

Personally I think society should spend more on the very young. That's the better economic choice.

---

I don't think that's very fair to those people considering that they have paid into the system their entire life

---

Paying into a system should cause you to get how big a benefit? Resources are not finite. I agree it's not "fair" but life is not fair. Does it make sense to spend so much on those that will not contribute back to society? From an economic standpoint a lot of resources are wasted on the very old.

---

Does it make sense to spend so much on a segment of the population that has not contributed yet instead of the segment of the population that worked for that money to be there?

To answer your question...yes, you should get the benefit when you are the one that created the benefit to start with

---

There is no guarantee that the person reaping the benefit of that care late in life have paid in or contributed. Lots of people are free loaders and some treatments are more resource intensive than an average worker makes in their life.
You can also argue that spending more on the young instead of the old would be an investment that paid off in economic returns over an entire life rather than concentrated on an older person in their last year of life

---

I sure am glad you ain't in charge of things for my grandma's sake.

---

curious to see if this posters mind set will change when they reach a certain age in life

---

Lol, both of you get off your high horse.

The context of the discussion was whether the allocation of finite resources is shifted too far toward the elderly and at the expense of the young. Over half of the healthcare money spent over the course of an average person's life is spent after they are a senior citizen. That spending concentrates further in the last year of life. Modern medicine is really good at getting a few extra months out of elderly patients with a low quality of life. The money spent on end of life hero measures would do better for society allocated to something like universal pre-K. That is an investment that pays societal dividends over decades.

Given my parents taught me to think this way and have made me aware of their end of life orders since I was a teenager, I doubt my mindset will change as I get older. Our family was taught to value is quality of life, and not to focus on prolonging quantity unnecessarily when the end inevitably approaches.

---

Just to clarify. Are you saying that my 83 year old grandma, who worked her entire life and paid into the system her entire life, doesn't deserve the same care or amount of care as someone who is 30 and hasn't?

---

Wayland said:

---

4/17/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 11:00am)

NC Cases*
5859
NC Deaths**
152
Currently Hospitalized
429 (87% hospital reporting)
Completed Tests
72981

4/18/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 11:00am)

NC Cases*
6140
NC Deaths**
164
Currently Hospitalized
388 (88% hospital reporting)
Completed Tests
76211

4/19/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 11:00am)

NC Cases*
6493
NC Deaths**
172
Currently Hospitalized
465
Completed Tests
78772

66 Deaths are now Congregate (+7 since yesterday)
18 Deaths can't be confirmed Con/Not

That means 7 of the 8 deaths added to the total since yesterday are congregate deaths

59 Congregate Facilities now have an outbreak. (+4)

WRAL is at 188 (+2) and NandO is at 185. Again, the lag, I am guess is coming in trying to confirm death location. Don't know why the lag since WRAL was in the 180s on Friday.

85% of the deaths are 65+. That number keeps creeping up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/20/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 11:00am)

NC Cases*
6764
NC Deaths**
179
Currently Hospitalized
373
Completed Tests
79484

73 Deaths are now Congregate (+7 since yesterday)
20 Deaths can't be confirmed Con/Not (+2)

NC Deaths went up by 7 but Congregate/unconfirmed went up by 9.

61 Congregate Facilities now have an outbreak. (+2)

WRAL is at 196 (+2) and NandO is at 199. Again, the lag, I am guess is coming in trying to confirm death location. Don't know why the lag since WRAL was in the 180s on Friday. Maybe counties are reporting deaths that aren't lab confirmed?

Deaths under 50 down to 4%

Still don't know why the crazy lag on DHHS. They are now 13-16 deaths behind yesterdays media counts.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

There is an underlying American policy issue here that could stand some discussion - the amount of medical treatment given to Septuagenarians, Octogenarians, and Nonagenarians. The health profession that we are attempting to protect is most vulnerable when they are treating the very old. The cost/benefit to society is very high when you lose a healthcare or emergency responder for several really old people.

The laws, payments systems, and training all encourage heroic and expensive treatments for those in their last 10% of life.

Personally I think society should spend more on the very young. That's the better economic choice.

---

I don't think that's very fair to those people considering that they have paid into the system their entire life

---

Paying into a system should cause you to get how big a benefit? Resources are not finite. I agree it's not "fair" but life is not fair. Does it make sense to spend so much on those that will not contribute back to society? From an economic standpoint a lot of resources are wasted on the very old.

---

Does it make sense to spend so much on a segment of the population that has not contributed yet instead of the segment of the population that worked for that money to be there?

To answer your question...yes, you should get the benefit when you are the one that created the benefit to start with

---

There is no guarantee that the person reaping the benefit of that care late in life have paid in or contributed. Lots of people are free loaders and some treatments are more resource intensive than an average worker makes in their life.
You can also argue that spending more on the young instead of the old would be an investment that paid off in economic returns over an entire life rather than concentrated on an older person in their last year of life

---

I sure am glad you ain't in charge of things for my grandma's sake.

---

curious to see if this posters mind set will change when they reach a certain age in life

---

Lol, both of you get off your high horse.

The context of the discussion was whether the allocation of finite resources is shifted too far toward the elderly and at the expense of the young. Over half of the healthcare money spent over the course of an average person's life is spent after they are a senior citizen. That spending concentrates further in the last year of life. Modern medicine is really good at getting a few extra months out of elderly patients with a low quality of life. The money spent on end of life hero measures would do better for society allocated to something like universal pre-K. That is an investment that pays societal dividends over decades.

Given my parents taught me to think this way and have made me aware of their end of life orders since I was a teenager, I doubt my mindset will change as I get older. Our family was taught to value is quality of life, and not to focus on prolonging quantity unnecessarily when the end inevitably approaches.

---

Just to clarify. Are you saying that my 83 year old grandma, who worked her entire life and paid into the system her entire life, doesn't deserve the same care or amount of care as someone who is 30 and hasn't?

---

Let's say both an 83 year old and a 30 year old need the same ventilator right now. Yes the 30 year old should get the ventilator over the 83 year old with all else equal. Introduce an 10 year old into the same room and that 10 year old should get the ventilator over the 30 year old. if the 83 year old has a significant pre-exisitng condition that makes recovery less likely, that further skews the assessment in favor of the younger. I would apply the same logic to my 89 year old grandma, who I love dearly, and who would agree with me.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Numbers for Congregate and Non-congregate as it relates to cases do not add up. When I look at new daily cases, I get the following:

Daily New Cases = 187 (6951-6764) <== Should be both Congregate and Non-Congregate cases
Congregate New Daily Cases = 229 (1869-1640)

So the Congregate New Daily Cases would have to be additive to the Daily New Cases. If I subtract Congregate New Daily Cases from Daily New Cases, I find Non-congregate New Daily Cases would be -42.

For deaths, the numbers are not reported this way and it appears total deaths include both Non-congregate and Congregate deaths. Based on this, 96 of the 213 deaths are from Congregate facilities, so 117 deaths are Non-congregate deaths (an increase of 11 from yesterday to today). At this rate, Congregate deaths will likely become the leading source of deaths in NC by the end of the week.

I suspect the death reports for non-congregate are increasing more as a result of reporting delay than an actual 11 new non-congregate deaths, since yesterday they reported 0 new non-congregate deaths.

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

When the government is counting COVID19 deaths for anyone who may have possibly been exposed to it or had it, i am unable to believe any numbers or information they release. For me, the beginning of last week was when I threw my hands up. They decided it was ok to count someone who died with or without COVID19 but possibly by COVID19 as a death. That was the end of it for me. I hope the protest continue and people just say screw you to their government. This entire virus has been a cluster from the beginning and here were are, 3 months in and the majority of government officials still have their heads stuck in their asses.

---

Wayland said:

---

Practice good hygiene, try to protect susceptible populations, and carry forward. I feel there is a massive vacuum in leadership and failing by the U.S to provide testing and so it has made it hard to make any kind of informed decision other than to shut it all down. And so that is where we are, shutting it all down. Likely a gross overreaction but no one knows what the true numbers are. Until testing is in place, the shut down is just to prevent mass hysteria.

---

Wayland said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Practice good hygiene, try to protect susceptible populations, and carry forward. I feel there is a massive vacuum in leadership and failing by the U.S to provide testing and so it has made it hard to make any kind of informed decision other than to shut it all down. And so that is where we are, shutting it all down. Likely a gross overreaction but no one knows what the true numbers are. Until testing is in place, the shut down is just to prevent mass hysteria.

---

What I said over 5 weeks ago when schools closed.

Social distancing to some degree falls into that.

It took 5 weeks to put together a testing task force.

There has been a piss poor job protecting congregate facilities (remember the people dying now, likely caught this in early April).

And my position is still mostly they same.

(EDIT: Today's NC Briefing is at 2pm https://www.ncdps.gov/storm-update )

---

Wayland said:

---

Announcement coming "probably" this week from governor regarding schools and the stay at home expiring at the end of this month.

---

statefan91 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Announcement coming "probably" this week from governor regarding schools and the stay at home expiring at the end of this month.

---

I read your sentence first thinking it said that it was expiring at the end of the month. Assume you mean there is an announcement coming this week regarding the stay at home order and its status.

I assume it will be extended through at least 5/15, more likely 5/31. I also expect the announcement to include officially closing schools through end of school year.

---

packgrad said:

---

Schools should just stay out rest of the school year at this point. They're already out until 5/15, at least. Going back for 2 weeks makes little sense to me.

---

Wayland said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Schools should just stay out rest of the school year at this point. They're already out until 5/15, at least. Going back for 2 weeks makes little sense to me.

---

I kind of agree. Whatever with schools at this point, the level of effort to shift everything back to in person again, will be a lot.

But I think camps and other youth activity restrictions should be relaxed.

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I have started seeing local restaurants asking people's feelings about opening back up with some restrictions as far as number of people in the restaurant and whatnot at the end of the month on social media. The responses are very positive to it. We have also had at least one store go out of business and been vocal about it. I am guessing that the governor isn't gonna get much of a choice about when the state (or at least my part of it) opens back up if there isn't some positive movement a whole lot sooner instead of later

---

Everpack said:

---

Am I the only one who gets on social media and feels like I'm taking crazy pills? People are absolutely scared ****less of this virus and have no reasoning other than news headlines.

I spent an embarrassing amount of time yesterday running some numbers based on the top ten hit states. I've said all along that I felt strongly that this virus affects high density urban areas differently. My crude research confirms that. The ten states most affected (NY, NJ, MI, MA, PA, IL, CA, LA, CT and FL) account for about 43% of the USA population, but have 73% of all positive cases and 82% of deaths. Those numbers are insane to me, but if you dive in a little further and look at each state individually you'll see that almost all of the high numbers come from the major metros. NYC and the surrounding commuting counties make up about 5% of the US population, but account for 50% of deaths! 82% of the deaths in Michigan are in three counties that make up Detroit and suburbs. 88% of the Illinois deaths come from four counties around Chicago. If you add Philly, LA, Miami, New Orleans and Boston metros to the above mentioned cities, you can account for about 54% of all cases and 66% of all deaths. Eight cities with about 16% of the countries population has two-thirds of our deaths. Surely someone smarter than me can see this, too. What am I missing? Am I the one that's out of touch?

---

Wayland said:

---

Go look at the state's annual flu survey. If the flu isn't a lab positive result, it isn't listed in their report as a flu death.

---