by Heraclitusstudent ➕follow (8) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 897 - 936 of 3,372 Next » Last » Search these comments
Our approach to this has been abysmal given our demographics
On January 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever. On checking into the clinic, the patient put on a mask in the waiting room. After waiting approximately 20 minutes, he was taken into an examination room and underwent evaluation by a provider. He disclosed that he had returned to Washington State on January 15 after traveling to visit family in Wuhan, China. The patient stated that he had seen a health alert from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the novel coronavirus outbreak in China and, because of his symptoms and recent travel, decided to see a health care provider.
…
On hospital day 8 (illness day 12), the patient’s clinical condition improved. Supplemental oxygen was discontinued, and his oxygen saturation values improved to 94 to 96% while he was breathing ambient air. The previous bilateral lower-lobe rales were no longer present. His appetite improved, and he was asymptomatic aside from intermittent dry cough and rhinorrhea. As of January 30, 2020, the patient remains hospitalized. He is afebrile, and all symptoms have resolved with the exception of his cough, which is decreasing in severity.
The average age of deaths in Italy is 81.
Depending on how many of the mildly symptomatic folks there are and the typical recovery time of the mildly symptomatic folks, the difference that even a few weeks of social distancing can make is profound.
They managed to shut it down, and everyone wears masks there (which our experts say don't work, but then we can't get them right now if they do).
STOP visiting them immediately for 2 months minimum.
Imagine how people would be reacting if this were a real crisis. Like the Spanish flu, or Krakatoa type eruption.
mell saysThe average age of deaths in Italy is 81.
I wonder how much of that is the result of triage choices. Save the ICUs and ventilators for younger folks that we have a better chance of saving.
At what cost?
1.You do not know the after effects of the virus on Normal people. It may cause lung Fibrosis
<2. The number of people dying without drastic measures is 1% of 100 million = 1 million people.
2. The number of people dying without drastic measures is 1% of 100 million = 1 million people.
Reality says
At what cost?
This is the unsavory question that noone wants to ask.
The virtue signaling rich housewives are going into the whole "these seniors saved us in ww2, you can't sit on the couch for 2 weeks" garbage.
Meanwhile i'm thinking " easy for a rich, spoiled princess to say. What about people who need their paycheck to buy food and gasoline?"
1. Their numbers are under reported
2. They undertook a massive intervention
We're much more equipped to have groceries delivered and sterilized at drop off versus shutting down the entire fucking productive world.
2. The number of people dying without drastic measures is 1% of 100 million = 1 million people
If that's the case then someone who understands stats needs to be watching over the decisions of the doctors. They are making these triage decisions based on estimated deathrates... which push the deathrate for that group higher?
Fuck I hope that's not the case
. which push the deathrate for that group higher?
"Social-distancing" has zero effect on reducing how many people total will be exposed to it: being only a way to flatten the curve until about 70% of the population are exposed to it thereby acquiring enough herd immunity.
Exposure versus severe cases.
Supposedly just many get sick (not just exposed), but just later. But it seems to me that it may significantly reduce the number of serious cases - not just postpone them. How can it not ?
How? What difference? The same virus, the same medical condition / genetics of the same person, why would the outcome/severity (before intensive medical intervention) be different depending on the timing of the first encounter?
So, four NBA players have tested positive for CV. Thing is: only one of them has any symptoms!
That’s what makes this thing spread so fast! Young healthy people are carriers and walk around infecting everyone they meet.
And lemme tell you, they aren’t getting CV tests! I couldn’t even get one and I had moderate symptoms! Finally abating, thank God. But I suspect a crap load of people are walking Typhoid Marys. Mostly kids and young adults.
I assume the Covid-19 test is for the specific new strains (L and S), but Coronavirus in general has been around forever and causing colds and deaths.
late encounter leading to lower severity
But what I'm thinking is why would later encounter mean not less encounter ? In other words why wouldn't some of the people that caught and got deathly ill(without social distancing) , not miss it entirely if during the social distancing a lot of the most susceptible people (not most susceptible to severe illness, but most susceptible to catching it) have had time to recover and not be contagious ?
Otherwise how do you explain South Korea or China for that matter, if quarantining and or social distancing only postpone the effect.
Both countries had very localized outbreaks.
But if you can quash local outbreaks, doing more than just postponing, then certainly shutting down metro areas to a significant degree may also do more than just postpone.
In any case, changing the subject, shouldn't the US be highly motivated to do significant testing, beyond just those people that think they may have CV, very soon ?
Shutting down a metro area in the US is likely to result in killing more people by depression (due to both isolation and financial pressure) than the number of elderly such a policy would save.
Can we admit all the stats about CV are wrong yet?
CV is not growing by 50%, or even 20% per day. The death rate isnt 2%.
If these two figures were anywhere close accurate then 1% of china would have died already.
Shutting down a metro area in the US is likely to result in killing more people by depression (due to both isolation and financial pressure) than the number of elderly such a policy would save.
« First « Previous Comments 897 - 936 of 3,372 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,268 comments by 15,050 users - Booger, DOGEWontAmountToShit, gabbar, mell online now