← Return to COVID-19 Coronavirus and Lung Health: What can you do?

Discussion
Comment receiving replies
@joelars

this reply is for the general Mayo public and no one specifically. I apologize upfront for any offense I will cause in stating my passionate.beliefs. I'm 65 with stage 3 COPD. Therefore, I'm one of the enhanced risk of death people (from the coronavirus) virus. Nonetheless, I believe that our fear of contagion and serious health consequences, has resulted in unjustified and substantial damage to the majority of our population, specifically the younger (under 50) healthy population. Our fear however justified, (of contagion) has resulted in the following: shutting down many privately owned businesses throughout the country. It has resulted in the loss of employment for millions of young working people, many have young children to support. It has resulted in the loss of 30% of the wealth of those invested in the stock markets. It will result in hundreds of billions in payouts to various industries to stave off bankruptcies that would probably plunge the country into a depression. And economics aside, It has significantly eroded the quality of life for many younger people by shutting down: night clubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, concerts, museums, hotels, casinos, health clubs, family gatherings, even ocean front beaches. Is it self-centered to force our younger population to pay that price for our fears? Realize, the chance of dying from the coronavirus is .02% for those 40 and under and .04% for those 40-50.. By comparison, the risk of death for those 20 and under from "regular" influenza is .41%. Therefore, this panic response is not about them but us. And is it a rational response? The, admittedly scant, data concludes casual contact will not result in contagion. Medical experts have consistently stated they either don't believe or have no proof to conclude that just touching surfaces touched by infected people will cause contagion-especially if we practice proper hand cleaning before touching our face. If we are that scared couldn't we choose self-isolation and refuse direct contact with others instead of demanding that all others make substantial quality of life sacrifices? Further, I thought the way a community builds up immunity or resistance to a "novel" virus is through interaction (assuming the virus isn't deadly). Even for the group at enhanced risk, like me, we have the right to live as we did before the virus if we are willing to assume the risks and don't force others to assume those same risks. It is a quality of life issue, and as such as adults we have the obligation to make informed choices. Here, the State has once again made those choices for us. If they are so wise, why didn't they do more to preempt this virus? I appreciate any objective criticisms. I'm biased and therefore, prone to make logical errors in my arguments. And again, I apologize for any appearance of disrespect to anyone on this site.

Jump to this post


Replies to "this reply is for the general Mayo public and no one specifically. I apologize upfront for..."

@joelars, I think I can understand why you feel passionate about this, although I will admit that we probably won't agree on the facts of the situation. I have minimal underlying conditions myself, so I suspect that I would survive a case of covid-19 but having had Influenza in the past, I don't relish the thought. I spent last weekend with my 20-something children and they are remarkably calm about this and okay with sacrificing some social life for the common good. Yes, there will be economic impacts to all of this but we have lived through difficult times before and we can get through this. The goal of shutting down public life is to "flatten the curve" of people going into our hospitals so that we don't have a huge surge of patients and run out of bed space or ventilators. In Italy, people are stacked in hallways and doctors are having to decide who gets treated and who does not. If we can slow down the spread of the virus, hopefully we can avoid that happening here and there will be care for everyone who needs it.

@joelars I agree with @coloradogirl’s response entirely. We are all in this together and have to do what is right for the common good. If we don’t isolate and practice social distancing the virus, which is far more contagious than the flu, will basically explode in numbers.
I have a 37 year old daughter and a 39 year old son and neither is upset about the restrictions put in place. They live in different states than we do and my daughter would love to spend the next month with us since they will both be working from home but it’s been decided that they could put my husband and me at risk so they will not. My daughter and I are both sorely disappointed but that is what must be done. That is the only thing that has been a problem for her and her husband at all.
JK

@joelars I see a lot of numbers and percentages here. As a self-described research nerd, I am curious about the source of numbers for your calculations and the underlying assumptions in making them.
Remember that covid-19 is a new virus in humans and noone has immunity yet. While it currently seems to be mild in much of the population, we are seeing how it spreads rapidly and can overwhelm our medical care system very quickly. We also do not know how it will mutate as it progresses, and it could potentially increase in lethality.
The reality is that if we do not do something to try to "flatten the curve" our resources will be overwhelmed. Look at China and Italy, the situations there are the reason for the current initiatives here.
This morning I spoke to an ER nurse in a metro area of 3 million people. Their current metrowide inventory of available ICU beds is under 20. To say the medical professionals are alarmed is a gross understatement. In the event of a rapid increase in critical cases, who gets care and who dies? Who decides?
We know that most people will get covid-19, and a significant number will get quite ill, requiring hospitalization. We also know that if we "flatten the curve", drawing out the period of time for spreading the infection, that the system will be able to absorb the caseload. With enough time, a vaccine may even come available to protect the most vulnerable among us. Something else to consider: if covid-19 overwhelms the care system, young healthy people will not be able to get care either, for unrelated illnesses, accidents or injuries...so it is in everyones' interest to sacrifice for the common good.
I believe this is a fairly long-term situation we will be dealing with, but adjustment is possible. We are already seeing that there will be economic pain, and if all of our businesses and government at all levels pull together to make things work, we will weather it.
Like some others here, my milennial children and nieces and nephews are adapting, figuring out how to survive and help those around them. If anything, they feel we are not taking the concept of social isolation seriously enough.
Suggesting that a society not do whatever it can protect the vulnerable because it is costly and economically painful horrifies me. I have no other word for it.
Sue
PS Some people do remember being "locked down" or quarantined due to a pandemic - it was called polio, and while I have no knowledge of what it did to the stock market, it sure affected our lives before vaccine was available.

Joe- I am quoting Colleen to respond to your post: "The intent of this group is to provide a space for people maintain a social connection, help each other out and reduce anxiety during anxious times. The public should hold their elected governments to account. I suggest doing that in a constructive way on the channels where your voice will be heard, not here on Mayo Clinic Connect. Let's turn our focus to what we can do to stay healthy within the constraints and limitations of the current pandemic."
Should you wish to discuss this further, please contact Colleen here: https://connect.mayoclinic.org/contact-a-community-moderator/