3 ms·

> No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal p

> No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. It really doesn't seem that you're getting it, because the whole point of this exercise is that it's quite patently obvious that no health care service in the world is able to keep 10 to 15% of their population in intensive care, which so far is the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. If that was the case then no one would be bothered with yet another flu-like viral infection.

ufov2 7y ago
What is the age distribution of the ICU requirement? Is it really in the ballpark of 10% for all age groups?
ajross 7y ago
> the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. Among the general population! Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% (I think, I'd have to look it up again). The intent is to quarantine the at-risk and let it propagate in the "safe". I genuinely think it's you who's failed to understand the plan. You're arguing against something that is not the stated UK policy.
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  Thanks for being devil's advocate. I too think it's too risky, FWIW. I read a while ago there might be permanent damage as well, but maybe that was hocus. Edit: Business Insider reported HK doctors found some people have 20-30% reduced lung capacity after recovery: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-lung-function-gasping-air-hong-kong-doctors-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-... (n=12)
- TheCondor 7y ago
  Do we actually have evidence that this quarantining is possible or working?
- lxxvii 7y ago
  > Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% Any chance you remember where you found this statistic? I have been looking for any details on hospitalization rates by age range, but haven't had luck so far.
hedora 7y ago
> 10 to 15% of their population in intensive care Estimates are closer to 10% of the infected getting severe cases, and some small-ish fraction of those requiring intensive care. (The higher percentage numbers are usually an artifact of low testing rates of infected people.) Also, epidemiology suggests that 20-70% will get it. So, we’re looking at ~1% of the population in the hospital at once. The rest of your points stand; we don’t have nearly enough hospital capacity for 1% of the population. Note that with a two week active phase, the pandemic would have to drag on for 20 weeks to get that number to 0.1%. I doubt there is capacity for that either.

ufov2 7y ago

What is the age distribution of the ICU requirement? Is it really in the ballpark of 10% for all age groups?

ajross 7y ago

> the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. Among the general population! Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% (I think, I'd have to look it up again). The intent is to quarantine the at-risk and let it propagate in the "safe". I genuinely think it's you who's failed to understand the plan. You're arguing against something that is not the stated UK policy.

kohtatsu 7y ago
Thanks for being devil's advocate. I too think it's too risky, FWIW. I read a while ago there might be permanent damage as well, but maybe that was hocus. Edit: Business Insider reported HK doctors found some people have 20-30% reduced lung capacity after recovery: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-lung-function-gasping-air-hong-kong-doctors-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-... (n=12)
TheCondor 7y ago
Do we actually have evidence that this quarantining is possible or working?
lxxvii 7y ago
> Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% Any chance you remember where you found this statistic? I have been looking for any details on hospitalization rates by age range, but haven't had luck so far.

hedora 7y ago

> 10 to 15% of their population in intensive care Estimates are closer to 10% of the infected getting severe cases, and some small-ish fraction of those requiring intensive care. (The higher percentage numbers are usually an artifact of low testing rates of infected people.) Also, epidemiology suggests that 20-70% will get it. So, we’re looking at ~1% of the population in the hospital at once. The rest of your points stand; we don’t have nearly enough hospital capacity for 1% of the population. Note that with a two week active phase, the pandemic would have to drag on for 20 weeks to get that number to 0.1%. I doubt there is capacity for that either.