3 ms·

Slowing the spread is exactly what we need to do. Around 15% of the people who get COVID-19 need ICU care in order to keep breathing. The fatality rate with car

Slowing the spread is exactly what we need to do. Around 15% of the people who get COVID-19 need ICU care in order to keep breathing. The fatality rate with care is no higher than around 2%, and maybe less. Without medical access, it is around 15%, guaranteed. The problem is there are only so many ICU beds available. If we self-isolate and slow the spread, then we can keep the number of dangerously ill people below our capacity limits, and make sure that everyone who needs care gets it. This is what Japan and South Korea have done. Italy did not react fast enough and now the fatality rate there is approaching 8%(!!). With very strict measures, we might even stop the epidemic in its tracks. So far, only China is on track for doing that.

nullc 7y ago
> Around 15% of the people who get COVID-19 need ICU I'm usually the doomssayer, but that's 15% of people who are diagnosed. Usually people who are asymptomatic or nearly asymptomatic don't get diagnosed. Only a few countries have testing programs widespread enough to start estimating case vs infection rates... and certainly not the US, where there are plenty of people who have been obviously infected who are still not included in the official counts because of god-knows-what-the-CDC-is-doing. What is clear enough is that whatever the rate of serious cases are, it's more than high enough to overload the hospitals-- just as is happening now in Italy. So I fully agree with your point, I just don't want to see if lost in the noise because some people will notice the 15% claim is almost certainly an overestimate.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  CDC is keeping the numbers down, as requested.
- garmaine 7y ago
  Other countries don't have the problem with widespread testing that the US has. That number comes from China, Italy, and South Korea. 15% of people who show symptoms need intensive medical care.
  - nullc 7y ago
    Yes, but what percentage of people who get infected need intensive medical care? :) The difference matters because it's likely that 60-70% of the population or so will eventually be infected. But it won't be 15% of that which need intensive medical care but some lesser number because some infections will be asymptomatic or nearly so.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      In South Korea and China they are testing everyone who has been exposed to the virus. Obviously they're not testing everybody so some are slipping through, but these are broad tests that are capturing some of the asymptomatic cases as well. If you want you can calibrate against the Diamond Princess numbers.
nostromo 7y ago
> The fatality rate with care is no higher than around 2%, and maybe less. Without medical access, it is around 15%, guaranteed. Literally nobody is saying that. Please stop spreading misinformation.
- garmaine 7y ago
  Read the data for yourself: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762130 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762130
  - nostromo 7y ago
    I don’t see anything about a 15% mortality rate. Can you point to that specifically?
    - garmaine 7y ago
      ~15% need serious medical intervention. That's at the very beginning of the article I linked, the "severe" cases in the table. Now under normal circumstances this intervention is not life threatening--that's the smaller "critical" category. But without access to common hospital equipment, the symptoms do become critical. Basically the patient becomes unable to breath normally, and without access to a breathing machine they'll suffocate themselves. Most "severe" cases are treatable with access to a hospital. But if we peak at once and that equipment is all occupied by other patients... that 15% of severe cases become fatal.

nullc 7y ago

> Around 15% of the people who get COVID-19 need ICU I'm usually the doomssayer, but that's 15% of people who are diagnosed. Usually people who are asymptomatic or nearly asymptomatic don't get diagnosed. Only a few countries have testing programs widespread enough to start estimating case vs infection rates... and certainly not the US, where there are plenty of people who have been obviously infected who are still not included in the official counts because of god-knows-what-the-CDC-is-doing. What is clear enough is that whatever the rate of serious cases are, it's more than high enough to overload the hospitals-- just as is happening now in Italy. So I fully agree with your point, I just don't want to see if lost in the noise because some people will notice the 15% claim is almost certainly an overestimate.

freeone3000 7y ago
CDC is keeping the numbers down, as requested.
garmaine 7y ago
Other countries don't have the problem with widespread testing that the US has. That number comes from China, Italy, and South Korea. 15% of people who show symptoms need intensive medical care.
- nullc 7y ago
  Yes, but what percentage of people who get infected need intensive medical care? :) The difference matters because it's likely that 60-70% of the population or so will eventually be infected. But it won't be 15% of that which need intensive medical care but some lesser number because some infections will be asymptomatic or nearly so.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    In South Korea and China they are testing everyone who has been exposed to the virus. Obviously they're not testing everybody so some are slipping through, but these are broad tests that are capturing some of the asymptomatic cases as well. If you want you can calibrate against the Diamond Princess numbers.

nostromo 7y ago

> The fatality rate with care is no higher than around 2%, and maybe less. Without medical access, it is around 15%, guaranteed. Literally nobody is saying that. Please stop spreading misinformation.

garmaine 7y ago
Read the data for yourself: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762130 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762130
- nostromo 7y ago
  I don’t see anything about a 15% mortality rate. Can you point to that specifically?
  - garmaine 7y ago
    ~15% need serious medical intervention. That's at the very beginning of the article I linked, the "severe" cases in the table. Now under normal circumstances this intervention is not life threatening--that's the smaller "critical" category. But without access to common hospital equipment, the symptoms do become critical. Basically the patient becomes unable to breath normally, and without access to a breathing machine they'll suffocate themselves. Most "severe" cases are treatable with access to a hospital. But if we peak at once and that equipment is all occupied by other patients... that 15% of severe cases become fatal.