3 ms·
The problem here will not be the virus, but the healthcare system capacity (I.e. the hospitals capacity). I.e. If you managed to get care, the mortality rate i
by streetcat1 7y ago
The problem here will not be the virus, but the healthcare system capacity (I.e. the hospitals capacity).
I.e. If you managed to get care, the mortality rate is X, but without care, it is 10X or even more.
So to judge the current mortality rate, you have to know how many of the infected received care.
I also assume that hospitals are like the phone system. I.e. they do not expect mass load at the same time.
- WheelsAtLarge 7y agoThat would be a very valuable number. What is the actual number of people that need to be hospitalized for this virus vs other epidemics?
- streetcat1 7y agoBased on what I read (mainly a very good analysis of first patient in the US), I think 100%, as everyone would need oxygen, as the virus infect the lungs (even with no preconditions). And this is on a healthy, young patient. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191
- jacobolus 7y agoNo, not everyone who contracts this virus ends up with pneumonia and needing a respirator. But it’s still a sufficient proportion to serve as a denial-of-service attack on hospitals, if the virus spreads throughout the community.