3 ms·
From my non-specialist understanding: Those examples (China, Italy) have taken drastic measures to keep people from socializing, in order to slow the spread of
by tribaal 7y ago
From my non-specialist understanding:
Those examples (China, Italy) have taken drastic measures to keep people from socializing, in order to slow the spread of the disease in order to not overwhelm the health system.
That's the killer - once you reach maximal hospital capacity, people die because of not only the severe virus infections, but because they can't get the required treatment for their other unrelated ailments as well (e.g. a stroke, or a car accident etc...). Italian doctors already have to make really hard decisions with regards to who they will admit into ICU since there are not enough beds for everyone.
So if only 1% of the country gets severe symptoms requiring hospitalization in the US, that's 3 million people needing intensive care unit beds, on top of the normal load.
Measures in Italy and China won't prevent 80% of the country to be infected (mostly, people will not need hospitalization - only a small fraction will), it only tries to reduce the number of people needing intensive care at the same time, in order to not overload the health system and save as many of them as possible (since they can't make enough ICU beds and equipment appear out of thin air)
EDIT: and of course, buy time until a vaccine or other treatment method is available...
- aquadrop 7y agoIt's just harsh restrictive measures are also not free. Sending economy into hard recession, disrupting supply chains etc will cause people to lose jobs, get under poverty line or not get above it etc. I think it would be a good idea to get more research on how to approach it, finding right balance. South Korea seems have curbed exponential spread and without much panic/hard disruption of everyday life, at least according to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqgMIrjKOQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqgMIrjKOQ