Covid-19 Poll: Birthrates Up or Down?

Dell / Inspiron one 2320
March 22, 2020 at 08:06:11
Specs: Windows 10, I5-9400
Voting is open:

1 - Birthrates will go up because people are staying home and need a way to pass the time.

2 - Birthrates will go down because we can't get haircuts/manicures/facials and we will find each other less attractive.


message edited by DerbyDad03


See More: Covid-19 Poll: Birthrates Up or Down?


#1
March 22, 2020 at 08:19:26
Up. Just like being at the bar...longer you wait (and drink), the lower your standards become. But I can't see someone wanting to bring a child into this kind of a "cluster-f***" of a world...

But then again, you'll likely see a surge of divorces/separations as well. Staying at home with each other 24/7 tends to snap relations that may already be strained. Know a buddy on his 3rd marriage. He and his wife were at odds before; both of them are now at the point of shooting one another....

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Report •

#2
March 22, 2020 at 10:02:34
re: "both of them are now at the point of shooting one another"

Sure would reduce the chance of spreading the virus...


message edited by DerbyDad03


Report •

#3
March 22, 2020 at 10:32:08
"Sure would reduce the chance of spreading the virus..."

Good point. I'll suggest it to them....

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
March 22, 2020 at 11:07:17
A-ha! I just wrote an email to my sister on the subject of
the virus. I was thinking of doing some research, editing
it, and sending the result to my local paper. With this
opportunity available, I think I'll just post it here as-is:

Two or three days ago I heard a snatch of info about people
testing positive for the virus but not showing any symptoms.
The other possibility wasn't mentioned: That the test was
giving false positives. Have you heard anything about this
and whether the tests are still thought to be reliable?
Have you heard anything about the consequences of a large
fraction of the population having the virus but not showing
symptoms?

My thought is that by holding down the spread of the virus
now, the rate at which people are infected will continue to
increase for much longer than if it were allowed to run wild.
Two years as opposed to two months. As it is, the probability
of encountering a symptom-free carrier will continue increasing
for a year or two, and it could be three or four years before
the rate falls back down to the very low level it is at now.

Right now, the probability of running into someone who carries
the virus is very, very low. A month from now it will be only
moderately low. Two months from now it will be high. Three
months from now it will be very high. Four months from now it
will be very, very high. Five months from now it will be even
higher. And so on for a year or two.

Think about what that means.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Up.


Report •

#5
March 22, 2020 at 11:21:28
Delaying the spread of the virus buys time to develop an effective vaccine and/or cure. So it's a good thing. As for its effect on the birthrate, I don't know. I'd certainly be very averse to the thought of bringing new life into the world right now with the risks to the newborn and the mother.

Report •

#6
March 22, 2020 at 12:39:40
"My thought is that by holding down the spread of the virus now, the rate at which people are infected will continue to increase for much longer than if it were allowed to run wild."

But by allowing it to run wild, that unleashes a potential back-breaking strain on the already-strained medical community, with many patients tying up already-limited resources. Not an effective solution. Perhaps the virus will also mutate into something a little less worrisome over time.

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Report •

#7
March 22, 2020 at 14:03:28
My thought is that by holding down the spread of the virus
now, the rate at which people are infected will continue to
increase for much longer than if it were allowed to run wild.

The whole idea behind #flattenthecurve is to stop the massive impact on the already strained healthcare system. People are still having heart attacks, getting treated for cancer, already pregnant, etc. 1,000 new Covid-19 cases per week for 10 weeks is easier on the system than 10,000 new cases in one week.

(Side note, because I don't know if it's true: If we #flattenthecurve and delay new cases, we'll be deep into the warmer weather which may slow the spread on it's own. I know this isn't the common cold or the flu, so I don't put much hope in a weather-based resolution. Just a little hope.)

I live in NY (state, not city). The Governor gives a briefing every day. He made a very good point yesterday. There are more confirmed cases in NY than any other state. However, NYS has done more tests than any other state. More tests will always show more cases. The real numbers to look at are the percentage of positive results and the percentage of population infected.

While NYS does have the largest number of confirmed cases, they rank 8th in terms of positives per test (22%). Some states are at 80% positives per test, the Virgin Island is at 100%. I'm no statistician, but I don't think you can actually compare 22% when it's 10K out of 45K to 100% when it's 6 out 6. The Law of Large Numbers has to enter into this at some point.

Some results can be seen here:

https://www.politico.com/interactiv...

While NYS does have the largest number of confirmed cases, they rank 8th in terms of positives per test at ~23%. Some states are at 80% positives per test, the Virgin Islands is at 100%. I'm no statistician, but I don't think you can actually compare 23% when it's 10K out of 45K to 100% when it's 6 out 6. The Law of Large Numbers has to enter into this at some point.

Meanwhile, back to the poll. I don't feel that the question of "who would consider bringing a child into this mess" applies here. I'm talking about the amount of sex acts themselves accidentally ending up in a pregnancy.

The real question is: Will there be more sex during this crisis or less? If there is more sex because people are forced to stay at home, then there will be more babies.


message edited by DerbyDad03


Report •

#8
March 22, 2020 at 14:50:10
I certainly understand and agree with the reason for trying to
flatten the curve. It's just that doing so could be even worse
than not doing so. DerbyDad gives the example that "1,000
new Covid-19 cases per week for 10 weeks is easier on the
system than 10,000 new cases in one week." For sure, but
I'm concerned that 10,000 new cases per week for 100 weeks
may not be easier than 100,000 new cases per week for six
weeks. Holding the rate for the USA to 1,000 per week seems
unlikely. Holding it at that rate for a year or more seems almost
impossible. It is higher than that now. Holding it to 10,000 new
cases per week seems more doable, but for a year? I doubt it.

If there are carriers who show no symptoms, and tests for the
virus were only developed and began being applied within the
last few months, then isn't it possible that the virus has been
circulating for a long time? How many people die of the flu in
a "normal" year? Are people dying at that rate from Covid-19?
No, not yet. Is the total number of deaths from flu + Covid-19
greater this flu season than deaths from flu in a normal year?
Not as far as I know.

We need more testing to determine how widespread the virus
already is. It could be far more widespread than most people
would believe, and most people who get it don't show severe
symptoms. It's just a possibility. But it is suggested by the
fact that so few children have been reported contracting it.
They are the ones most likely to pick something up and pass
it on to others, yet they seem to be hardly affected at all.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

message edited by Jeff Root


Report •

#9
March 22, 2020 at 15:08:58
T-R-A,

You may be thinking of 'The Andromeda Strain'.

Mutations don't work like that. What happens to change the
situation is that the hosts (humans in this case) mutate (or
their immune systems mutate) to develop natural immunity,
and those who don't have the mutation die off. Death is an
essential part of the solution to the problem.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis


Report •

#10
March 22, 2020 at 16:00:46
I've seen The Andromeda Strain (and read the novel) multiple times...and no, that's not what I'm thinking about:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/virus...

While this isn't the flu we're dealing with, it still is classified as a virus...

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Report •

#11
March 22, 2020 at 19:03:12
Notice that that web page talks about mutations in viruses
making the viruses more virulent, but doesn't say anything
about mutations making them less virulent. The reason for
that is that only a single virus mutates, and the mutation is
passed on to its replicas, and will survive if it is advantagous.
The quadrillions of other viruses in the environment are
unchanged, so their power to cause illness is unchanged.
However, a less-damaging strain might be able to survive
better than a strain that does more damage to its host, so
it can become more widespread, and sort of take over the
territory of its parent strain. So you have a good point!

Took a while to get there, huh?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis


Report •

#12
March 23, 2020 at 10:36:53
Here's something that is just so asinine that it's infuriating.

This is not a political statement - I'd be saying this regardless of who was in office if they made the same decision as our current administration has regarding the purchase of masks, ventilators and other equipment.

Federal Government to the States: "You know what you need, you order it yourselves. It'll be more efficient, less red tape, quicker response from the suppliers. All of that will result in quicker delivery."

At the same time, the Federal Government is also ordering the same supplies for the needs that they, as a Federal government, are responsible for.

So now we have states bidding against states bidding against the Federal government for the same limited inventory of supplies.

Is it any wonder that N95 masks were 80ยข a few weeks ago, $4.00 on Saturday, $8.00 today? (Per Gov. Cuomo, NY)

IMO the Federal Government should take full control of the medical supply situation. They should be the single source for ordering to put an end to the price gouging that is being caused by competing bids.

Enact whatever Public-Private Partnership laws need to be put in place and get it done.

(Yes, I make sound so simple. I know it's not, but there has to be a better system than having our national leaders step back and say "States, handle it yourselves." The same leaders (both parties) that tell the states what they can and can't do if they want federal funding for projects/programs should also be carrying the ball in situations where abdicating the responsibility makes the situation worse.

message edited by DerbyDad03


Report •

#13
March 23, 2020 at 22:16:23
I'll use this venue to ask a serious and important question:

Setting aside the economic, political, and sociological
aspects of the situation, what are the epidemiological
conditions that need to be met in order to relax the
distancing recommendations?

I'm not asking or expecting anyone to answer that here,
of course, but someone, somewhere needs to answer it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis


Report •

#14
September 18, 2020 at 02:46:02
I am voting for up. Partnes had/have more time for each other while working from home (or sadly not even working) so they have to pass the time somehow. :)
But I am happy for any family getting kids!

Report •

Ask Question