3 ms·

You need masks based on the number of patients, not the number of patients per capita, it makes perfect sense. Not that I'm defending this.

• drusepth 7y ago
  Looking at either number of patients or patients per capita both result in nonfractional masks given to individual patients. It's just a matter of whether someone morally thinks more patients equals more urgent (60k FR vs 235K US), or a higher percentage of the population as patients (0.08% FR vs 0.07% US) equals more urgent, no?
  • Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I don't know where diebeforei485 was going with "fractional masks" either, but thatguy0900 makes a good point in isolation. A country of 1,000 people and a 10% infection rate has a greater shortage of masks than a country of 5 people and a 100% infection rate.
    • drusepth 7y ago
      I agree with you, but I think that was MagnumOpus's point of bringing up patients per million. A country of 1,000 people and a 10% infection rate has more patients that need masks, but it could be argued that a country of 5 people and a 100% infection rate needs the masks more, lest their entire country suddenly collapse and cease to exist. Seems like arguing that France has more patients per million implies they have a bigger threat to the country itself (traditions, systems, jobs, etc) or that the spread is less contained (and therefore more in need of PPE), compared to another country with a lower patients-per-million that is theoretically not hit "as hard", but still may have more individual patients at risk.