4 ms·
Wouldn't this also only assume that we don't tax the current system? Since, you can still be 'critical' need a ventilator/icu, but not die, would mean that if t
by gremlinsinc 7y ago
Wouldn't this also only assume that we don't tax the current system? Since, you can still be 'critical' need a ventilator/icu, but not die, would mean that if there aren't available beds/equipment, the mortality rate goes up, am I right? Being as we have around 96,000 ICU beds, and 64,000 ventilators.
Could that drive up the mortality to 4-8% simply due to unpreparedness?
- taylodl 7y agoCorrect. What we know so far is 80% of those infected show mild to no symptoms. 20% of those infected require hospitalization. Of that 20%, roughly 15% perish. The problem is we can't tell who that 15% are. So we treat everybody equally. To your point, IF there were a massive outbreak in the United States far more than 3% would be expected to die due to our medical resources being depleted. This is one of the reasons the flu of 1918 was so deadly - medical resources were depleted. There's a good documentary about it (the 1918 flu) on Netflix.
- gremlinsinc 7y agoK, my logical brain + google, sort of came to this conclusion. Just kind of scary the implications. I'm also curious what this is going to have on the state of politics in America, I mean --the boomers might speed up their rate of decline being the target demo for the virus, giving a lift to the gen-x, xennials, millenials, etc...