|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On September 02 2020 08:14 Lmui wrote:https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/09/01/concerns-mental-health-children-covid-19/One of the arguments coming out in favour of children going back to school. It's brutal for kids to not have social interaction, both from a physical and mental perspective. It has to be balanced against the health of families as well, because they obviously interact with other people, but it's not just as simple as keeping kids home, and having them learn online. Show nested quote +Austin notes the report reveals 57 per cent of children said their mental health is either somewhat or much worse than before the pandemic.
“Suicide is now the leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 14,” she says, adding the frightening statistic is just one of the many concerning facts to come out of this report.
I'm confused. I wanted to look up whether suicide deaths were actually up, or whether traffic deaths were down. So I went to the news article, which had the report and from there I followed the link to Statistics Canada with the original numbers... and there is nothing there about 2020. The most recent death numbers are from 2018. In 2016 and in 2018 suicides caused more deaths in children aged 10-14. In other years accidents caused more deaths. I can't find anything about 2019 or 2020... so how exactly does this say *anything* about Covid? That *frightening statistic* is from pre-Covid data. It's also worth noting that children don't die very much at all, and I dont know if the YoY differences are statistically significant at all. We're talking about ~200 deaths per year here, split into subgroups of ~40 for each of these causes. Not exactly a large sample size (thankfully).
That said, the report *does* use more recent data for most of its claims and seems well put together, but the suicide statistics that the news has decided to run with are from 2018 and have nothing to do with Covid.
|
On September 02 2020 16:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 08:14 Lmui wrote:https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/09/01/concerns-mental-health-children-covid-19/One of the arguments coming out in favour of children going back to school. It's brutal for kids to not have social interaction, both from a physical and mental perspective. It has to be balanced against the health of families as well, because they obviously interact with other people, but it's not just as simple as keeping kids home, and having them learn online. Austin notes the report reveals 57 per cent of children said their mental health is either somewhat or much worse than before the pandemic.
“Suicide is now the leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 14,” she says, adding the frightening statistic is just one of the many concerning facts to come out of this report. I'm confused. I wanted to look up whether suicide deaths were actually up, or whether traffic deaths were down. So I went to the news article, which had the report and from there I followed the link to Statistics Canada with the original numbers... and there is nothing there about 2020. The most recent death numbers are from 2018. In 2016 and in 2018 suicides caused more deaths in children aged 10-14. In other years accidents caused more deaths. I can't find anything about 2019 or 2020... so how exactly does this say *anything* about Covid? That *frightening statistic* is from pre-Covid data. It's also worth noting that children don't die very much at all, and I dont know if the YoY differences are statistically significant at all. We're talking about ~200 deaths per year here, split into subgroups of ~40 for each of these causes. Not exactly a large sample size (thankfully). That said, the report *does* use more recent data for most of its claims and seems well put together, but the suicide statistics that the news has decided to run with are from 2018 and have nothing to do with Covid.
Children/teenagers are definitely in a worse position than adults. Consider what components made up what % of your life when you were 16, now compare that to today. Much of socializing and whatnot in teens and 20s is, at the end of the day, largely centered around finding someone romantically, whether that is clear at the time or not. Once we end up in a long term relationship, people tend to suddenly start being way less involved in meeting as many people as possible.
High school basically a crazy, awful, emotional mess of social expectations and other random shit. Then college is kinda like that but maybe only like 30% as bad. For these young people, their entire world is being ruined by not being able to go to stupid ass parties. They don't have a career, wife, kids and other things that are occupying their fulfillment/engagement. When a teenager sits at home (well, normie teens, not TL teens), they aren't able to do a lot.
|
On September 03 2020 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:
When a teenager sits at home (well, normie teens, not TL teens), they aren't able to do a lot.
An obsession with video games is a definite boon in times like this. Much more so than watching sports, which is also broken. Heh.
|
On August 31 2020 03:35 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 23:51 Mohdoo wrote:On August 30 2020 23:42 Silvanel wrote:
Perhaps a solution would be to create two abstracts: one aimed at pseudo journalist - explaining reasearch in simple words and the other working the way it works now. Not perfect - takes space in publication and time for writing/reviwing, would offer some protection. Instead, they could say "Every single piece of information we have over the last 200 years indicate a mask of any sort will help reduce infection in some non-zero way. Go ahead and everyone wear masks for now while we figure out the specifics." I would like to reiterate: Not a single chemist or microbiologist wondered if masks would be helpful. I was telling my friends to wear masks in ***February*** It was obvious it would help, just a matter of how much. There was never a legitimate argument for the idea that masks would not be effective. But stupid dogshit academic guidelines punched ourselves in the face. The scientists probably won't communicate like that because they aren't certain about the things you mention. Many scientists are skeptical about the utility of masks (see for example this). Masks aren't recommended by the public health agencies in the Scandinavian countries, for example, and we have almost no spread of the virus anymore. Scientists usually don't say simplistic things like "Don't open schools its dangerous!" or "Every one wear masks and we'll be OK!" simply because they don't know that. When scientists start producing simplified and politically correct statements they stop being scientists.
I know I am a bit late to the party, but just want to point out that is isn't correct anymore (at least since 14th August). The Norwegian government recommends to use face masks when commuting using public transport, in large areas of Norway.
Also, seems like the countries which has a female leader has been significantly better at responding to Covid19 than those that have a male leader. Interesting stuff.
|
Not particular COVID related but I've been moving more and more to the opinion that we should vote for women candidates rather than men candidates when available. The issue is women don't tend to get involved in politics as much so there's fewer candidates.
|
Nothing against female leaders but I saw this piece from the Washington Post saying they found no relationship between gender of leadership and pandemic outcomes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/26/are-female-leaders-better-fighting-covid-19/
I also recall seeing a study claiming female monarchs had a significantly greater propensity to wage war compared to male monarchs. I wouldn't count on the romantic gender models to make grand assumptions about their role in politics.
|
Personally, I've noticed generally noticed less political infighting and more good governance focus from women, so that's the angle I'm looking from.
|
|
|
Penn State says that one third of athletes who tested positive for covid-19 now have myocarditis.
Link
Seems to be much higher than a normal flu, and suggests that there are good reasons to want to avoid covid-19 even if you are young.
|
On September 03 2020 23:02 warding wrote:Nothing against female leaders but I saw this piece from the Washington Post saying they found no relationship between gender of leadership and pandemic outcomes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/26/are-female-leaders-better-fighting-covid-19/I also recall seeing a study claiming female monarchs had a significantly greater propensity to wage war compared to male monarchs. I wouldn't count on the romantic gender models to make grand assumptions about their role in politics.
Isn't a lot of wars started to solve internal problems of the state? So being the less favoured gender would likely force more wars to stabilise the state and not get overthrown by the military faction. Though I havn't read any research on it.
Secondly, the state might be felt to be weak by external parties. Thus being forced into wars, regardless of which party that starts it.
|
|
|
It seems to be a trend (noted enough months back that I don't remember where) that individuals who take on more aerobic exercise, even if healthy, tend to suffer worse from corvid disease infections. Makes sense for a respiratory illness.
|
On September 04 2020 03:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2020 02:37 IgnE wrote:Penn State says that one third of athletes who tested positive for covid-19 now have myocarditis. LinkSeems to be much higher than a normal flu, and suggests that there are good reasons to want to avoid covid-19 even if you are young. That is frightening since most of those people should be in top heath positions (except some of the lineman who would have a lot of weight).
Linemen are not healthy people. 30% of infected makes me at least hopeful, since I am not sure what % of eggball teams are linemen.
|
|
|
On a somewhat different note. Six months in to what looks like a lockdown with no apparent end, things feel quite a bit different from the first few weeks of this thing. Back then, everything was closed down with the expectation of a clean reopening a month or two later. Now? Well things aren't quite so closed, but the things that do close, look like they're closing for good. And WFH is great from the flexibility perspective, but I'm also quite tired of being tethered to a phone and laptop for 8-10 hours a day. Albeit it's better than sitting in a cubicle, mask on, for the same amount of time, not really able to move around because talking to anyone else in person is such a chore under quarantine conditions...
Even one fifth of the crowd that was commonplace in January now feels completely and utterly claustrophobic when "personal space" is 6 feet. So I noticed upon taking a stroll through the local mall. Obviously that's bad for business, let alone any form of entertainment. I say that despite hardly being the kind of person who thrives on social interaction; must be a lot more difficult for much more social folk. What to do when socializing responsibly feels like a giant chore, and doing so irresponsibly is a substantial risk of disability or death?
So yeah. From my end, the US feels not quite locked down, but it's only "open" in the most depressing way possible. The virus is neither under control nor getting aggressively worse. Just stuck in a perpetual state of half-open. How are the rest of y'all doing with this, personally?
|
I wonder how differently it impacts athletes physiologically or of it's that people that push themselves regularly are just more aware of capability/performance changes?
|
On September 04 2020 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I wonder how differently it impacts athletes physiologically or of it's that people that push themselves regularly are just more aware of capability/performance changes?
Don't know about this specifically, but I know that the top athletes tends to have worse immune system than your average guy due to the extreme conditions their body is going through. There's a lot of focus on it at our top athlete high schools in Norway.
|
|
|
There's long been suggestions that this coronavirus hits the cardiovascular, not just the respiratory system.
Probably going to be a problem in America, there's been lots of evidence showing Troponin T blood markers in coronavirus patients. Which is used to diagnose heart attacks and heart disease in general.
On September 04 2020 03:27 LegalLord wrote:
It seems to be a trend (noted enough months back that I don't remember where) that individuals who take on more aerobic exercise, even if healthy, tend to suffer worse from corvid disease infections. Makes sense for a respiratory illness.
The evidence would point to a cardiovascular illness, not just a respiratory one. Which is probably worse?
|
On September 04 2020 12:19 StalkerTL wrote:There's long been suggestions that this coronavirus hits the cardiovascular, not just the respiratory system. Probably going to be a problem in America, there's been lots of evidence showing Troponin T blood markers in coronavirus patients. Which is used to diagnose heart attacks and heart disease in general. Show nested quote +On September 04 2020 03:27 LegalLord wrote:
It seems to be a trend (noted enough months back that I don't remember where) that individuals who take on more aerobic exercise, even if healthy, tend to suffer worse from corvid disease infections. Makes sense for a respiratory illness. The evidence would point to a cardiovascular illness, not just a respiratory one. Which is probably worse?
I saw some stuff that mentioned that it was more of a blood based disease of which the most immediately lethal symptoms were respiratory related, which is why it is so damaging.
There's been evidence flying around of people with decreased liver, kidney, heart, lung, etc. function months after recovering from covid. I would bet that for every death to covid, the survivors probably lose at least a century of longevity and a millenium of decreased QoL. That's the true cost of the disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
