3 ms·
I think, actually, this statement is misguided, for a couple reasons. Its very likely that people are underestimating the average city's "hospital beds per capi
by 013a 7y ago
I think, actually, this statement is misguided, for a couple reasons. Its very likely that people are underestimating the average city's "hospital beds per capita" metric; frankly, a ton of people live in the average city (duh). Are there enough beds in many of America's tier-2 (say, Austin) and tier-3 (say, Cleveland) cities to cover all of the population?
By comparison, outside of cities, the spread will be far, far slower than within. Yes, healthcare is worse, but there's an order of magnitude fewer cases. People travel less. They go to the store once every two weeks, not every 4 days, even when there isn't a quarantine. They don't visit the new hipster restaurant down the street. They don't live twenty feet away from their neighbors.
NYC has 25% of all of the United State's cases, despite having ~2% of the US's population. This is the same story that is playing out in every state. Let's take Indiana as an example, being that they're having a relatively moderate outbreak with mostly rural areas surrounding a top 15 US city by population: Indianapolis has 41% of the state's cases, despite representing ~12% of the state's population.
This shouldn't be a surprise; diseases spread faster in cities. But, what you're asserting is that, eventually, rural areas will see the same spread that cities are. This feels misguided. That isn't to say that some, or even most, rural hospitals wont be "running hot" for a really long time, and that the virus wont spread and these areas, but its simply unlikely that the situation will ever be as bad as in major cities.
- danharaj 7y agoMy position is based on the unpredictability of exponential phenomena and the fact that the healthcare system in rural areas has been in the process of being hollowed out for quite some time. The incubation period of COVID-19 (estimated median 6 days last I checked?), coupled with the fact that most people who carry it are asymptomatic means that it's only a matter of time before it hits rural areas whose capacity is like, what? 0.5 ICU beds per county? If you need a ventilator out there you're gonna fucking die.
- nradov 7y agoThe majority of COVID-19 patients who need a ventilator are going to die regardless of whether they actually get a ventilator or not. Hopefully that will change as more effective treatments are developed, but that's the current reality. By all means let's do whatever it takes to deploy more ventilators, but they're not a panacea.
- taeric 7y agoI've been curious on this. Do you have numbers for people that have been put on them?
- graeme 7y agoConfirmed cases depend on testing. What’s the testing capacity in Indianapolis vs rural areas? There’s also a time lag. I think it hit New York first because of all the travel connections. But why would rural areas be immune? People do still meet each other. They do go to church. Tellingly, flu death rates tend to be higher in rural areas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/19/rural-areas-may-be-most-vulnerable-during-coronavirus-outbreak/?arc404=true https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/19/rural-areas...
- fourmyle 7y agoYep everyone in rural places blindly goes to church no matter every Sunday (eye roll).
- beefalo 7y agoLegal action has had to been taken already to prevent gatherings at churches. https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisiana-pastor-who-defied-coronavirus-order-arrested-on-misdemeanor-charges https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisiana-pastor-who-defied-coron...
- graeme 7y agoMany US states do not currently have restrictions on churches. I was replying to the point that people in rural areas are spread out. My point was that some activities, like church, bring people together into an enclosed space.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]