[teejers1]

P.S.  On all those SCC deaths you cite, can you tell me how many people under the age of 20, with no comorbidities, died from Covid?  How about under 30?  How about under 40?  50?  60?  70?  Why do we not have that information (when clearly the county does)?  You may think that's irrelevant; I do not.

If only SCC had a dashboard you could get that info from:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...eaths.aspx

You can even download the underlying datasets:
https://data.sccgov.org/browse?category=COVID-19

1/363 (0.3%) was a death in an individual under 20.
4/363 (1.1%; 0.3% + 0.8%) occurred in individuals under 30.
11/363 (3%) of deaths occurred in individuals under 40.
25/363 (6.9%) of deaths occurred in individuals under 50.
58/363 (16%) of deaths occurred in inidviduals under 60.
119/363 (32.8%) of deaths occurred in patients under 70.

SCC doesn't do the joint probability of comorbidities and age, but 13% of patients were known not to have comorbidities (an additional 6.6% had an unknown comorbidity status).  Obviously comorbidities and age aren't independent so you can't just estimate them based on the joint probabilities, but a substantial majority of those deaths occurred in patients with comorbidities, so deaths in young patients without comorbidities are very rare indeed.

This pattern is consistent with data that has been reported elsewhere, which is to say that there is a strong association between age and comborbidities and risk of fatal COVID-19.

BC

C'mon, BC, you don't think I know about that dashboard?  That's why I asked why the joint numbers are not reported.  It's mathematically possible, is it not, that every single person who died without a comorbidity was over the age of 70?  (I could be wrong . . . was never a math guy.  [BTW, I don't expect that to be the case, but it would be interesting to know]).

And Dabig, as harsh as it sounds, yes, it does matter what the profile is of those perishing from a societal weighing of costs and benefits.  You may think that's harsh, cold, what have you - but there's a pretty strong argument that it is irresponsible for policymakers NOT to be considering the decedent profiles when making policies.  I love how people are so "caring" for decedents they do not know, but seemingly uncaring for the 200X as many people who lose jobs with all the ancillary drawbacks from that.  As for the rest of your short-form summary, that barely deserves a response.  But I will say this: with SCC's profile of cases and hospitalizations, the schools - especially north county - should be opening (at least try).  It's coming . . . slowly . . . and we'll see.  [BTW, if I were Dear Bureaucrat, I don't think I'd open indoor bars.  Youth soccer?  College soccer?  Absolutely they should be playing.  And really, most kids' stuff should be going forward. . .]

[teejers1]

P.S.  On all those SCC deaths you cite, can you tell me how many people under the age of 20, with no comorbidities, died from Covid?  How about under 30?  How about under 40?  50?  60?  70?  Why do we not have that information (when clearly the county does)?  You may think that's irrelevant; I do not.

If only SCC had a dashboard you could get that info from:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...eaths.aspx

You can even download the underlying datasets:
https://data.sccgov.org/browse?category=COVID-19

1/363 (0.3%) was a death in an individual under 20.
4/363 (1.1%; 0.3% + 0.8%) occurred in individuals under 30.
11/363 (3%) of deaths occurred in individuals under 40.
25/363 (6.9%) of deaths occurred in individuals under 50.
58/363 (16%) of deaths occurred in inidviduals under 60.
119/363 (32.8%) of deaths occurred in patients under 70.

SCC doesn't do the joint probability of comorbidities and age, but 13% of patients were known not to have comorbidities (an additional 6.6% had an unknown comorbidity status).  Obviously comorbidities and age aren't independent so you can't just estimate them based on the joint probabilities, but a substantial majority of those deaths occurred in patients with comorbidities, so deaths in young patients without comorbidities are very rare indeed.

This pattern is consistent with data that has been reported elsewhere, which is to say that there is a strong association between age and comborbidities and risk of fatal COVID-19.

BC

C'mon, BC, you don't think I know about that dashboard?  That's why I asked why the joint numbers are not reported.  It's mathematically possible, is it not, that every single person who died without a comorbidity was over the age of 70?  (I could be wrong . . . was never a math guy.  [BTW, I don't expect that to be the case, but it would be interesting to know]).

And Dabig, as harsh as it sounds, yes, it does matter what the profile is of those perishing from a societal weighing of costs and benefits.  You may think that's harsh, cold, what have you - but there's a pretty strong argument that it is irresponsible for policymakers NOT to be considering the decedent profiles when making policies.  I love how people are so "caring" for decedents they do not know, but seemingly uncaring for the 200X as many people who lose jobs with all the ancillary drawbacks from that.  As for the rest of your short-form summary, that barely deserves a response.  But I will say this: with SCC's profile of cases and hospitalizations, the schools - especially north county - should be opening (at least try).  It's coming . . . slowly . . . and we'll see.  [BTW, if I were Dear Bureaucrat, I don't think I'd open indoor bars.  Youth soccer?  College soccer?  Absolutely they should be playing.  And really, most kids' stuff should be going forward. . .]