Things that can kill a 70 year old include such threats as falling over, or moderate exercise. At no point in thousands of years of human history have we seriously tried to keep all the 70 year olds who were alive at the start of the year alive at the start oft he next year. It isn't possible.
60s is a different thing, but at 70 there are very real questions about whether a quarantine is even worth it. Do you risk losing half your remaining lifespan in a quarantine, attempting to avoid a 30% chance of death? The calculus is grim, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.
EDIT: The comment I'm replying to was edited after my comment and the "Reasonable precautions for the vast majority of people don’t seem like enough if you’re 70+." added.
Those people don't all die in their 20s. It's harder to get past 20, but once you did, you could live up to 70 if not more. There wouldn't be elders otherwise.
_Permanently totally isolating everyone over 60_ is clearly not feasible. In a scenario where it was allowed spread willy-nilly through the younger population, that isolation would have to be absolute.
And it is not like under 60s are all that safe. In the US 25% of deaths are under 65.
_Permanently totally isolating everyone over 60_ is clearly not feasible.
More or less infeasible than throwing millions of people out of work and forbidding everyone from seeing their friends and families?
And it is not like under 60s are all that safe. In the US 25% of deaths are under 65.
85% of the US population is under 65. So 15% of the population has 75% of the deaths, meaning a randomly selected person over 65 is 17 times more likely to have died than a random person under 65.
Sorry, I'm not a 20 something saying wow 70 is a long time, I'm closer to 50 than 40 so I can almost see 70. I was trying to provide some perspective on 70 not being old. It should still be a very productive time in peoples lives, and it's still way too young to die.
Given the ongoing statistics coming out of South Korea (which I'd suggest are the most accurate) where only one person under 50 has died. It seems that these safeguards would be best spent around those aged 60+ and perhaps those 50+ with other health issues.
Those who are younger seem to be mildly affected for the most part and could go on with their lives as long as they didn't interact with the older population.
It is even a lot worse for people in this age group.
60-70 year olds have a case fatality rate of ~3-4% here in Germany and that despite not being limited by the capacity of the health care system yet. A sixty year old can easily expect a decade or two of extra-lifetime. That's the difference between seeing the grandchild finish school and being a vague memory for them.
I don't understand how the whole age thing doesn't make you think for a second your conclusion is a bit misguided. Can you elaborate how you think a population of average age ~60 handles any disease?
For reference, a 70 yo has a 1.9% mortality. A 80 yo has 6% mortality rate according to actuarial tables.
"A human being dies more often than that. To accept this is obscene. It is is immoral. It is insane. And yet, most people do. Shame on us."
Currently death is inevitable and a law of nature. Perhaps technology will change this in the future. As it is, it's one of the those things one must accept and come to terms with.
Perhaps you are a bit too depressed about aging. There are documented cases of peoples in their 70:s being quite keen and healthy.
I think one the keys here is exercise. People who do daily walks are much more healthy than people who don't. If one is in their 70:s and has been sedentary for most of his life and the other one has kept even a routine of daily walks, the other one has decades of exercise behind him.
There has been studies that moderate exercise helps to revert supposedly age related cognitive discrepancies. Sorry, can't find the reference right now.
My belief (anecdotal and completely unfound) is that people who live healthy lives are much more healthier when old. Thus part of the incapacity attached to old age is not biological predestination but also affected through the current and past lifestyle of the old person.
Sure, one CAN be in a really bad shape in their 70:s. Just sit decades on a sofa watching TV. Or perform work that is physically exhausting.
I think you are overthinking and fearing too much a thing you do not know thoroughly. That you refer to a scientific paper is an indication of trying to rationally cope with this. However, there is one problem - Most bleeding edge scientific studies are flawed and incorrect. I would not consult a single paper to form an opinion on anything. I would consult a gerontologist. And even his opinion might be formed from studying partial population - the sick and in need of care - in stead of the whole population.
I don't think so. All else equal, a 75 year old is more likely to drop dead tomorrow than a 25 year old (or healthy newborn) is, so the 10% death probability is less of a problem for them. Moreover, the years at the end of one's life are not quite the same as years of youth.
Even at 80 it only about doubles the chance they die. An 80 year old has a 5% chance of death, adding another 5% chance of death is striking no doubt, and would consider that very much at risk. 50 however...
The IFR was close to zero for people between the ages of 15 and 44, increasing to 3.1% for 65–74-year-olds and to 11.6% for anyone older. The results of the study have been posted to the medRxiv preprint server1.
60s is a different thing, but at 70 there are very real questions about whether a quarantine is even worth it. Do you risk losing half your remaining lifespan in a quarantine, attempting to avoid a 30% chance of death? The calculus is grim, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.
reply