3 ms·

That still means that (after a few grueling weeks) 1/3rd of the patients could survive. Moreover there's all the non-covid19 patients that could also survive if

That still means that (after a few grueling weeks) 1/3rd of the patients could survive. Moreover there's all the non-covid19 patients that could also survive if they wouldn't find the ICU fulls. That's not irrelevant. Btw, you're right that we're not capitalizing on the lockdown as much as we could: we're supposed to build out the testing, contract tracing and early detection infrastructure (temperature checks at every office and grocery shops... Italy just started) Shutting down plane flights is actually not that useful: we should just do what South Korea is doing and test every single arrival, and then we could keep that infrastructure in place (obviously, if the number of flights make it untenable to test every arrival, that should be heavily capped)

redis_mlc 7y ago
No, 1/3 are not expected to survive. If you read the article, they're expecting 90% to either die or have organ damage. So out of 50 patients, they's expecting 2 patients to walk out of the hospital with some kind of normal life. Ventlators don't appear to tbe the answer beyond, "Well, we tried to do something. Too bad they don't work." The additional problem is that using ineffective ventilators kills your hospital staff for little gain. In SARs-1 (2002) in Toronto, more hospital staff got infected or died than in the general population. Hospital ventilation systems circulate airborne diseases. Now that we have data that ventilators don't work, we need to look at what the next steps are. There's no point in destroying the economy waiting for ventilators when they're not a treatment for corona virus.
- yodon 7y ago
  Your analysis that ventilators don't work may be valid. Your conclusion that therefor trying to flatten the curve is useless is dangerously invalid. Most people who come down with Covid-19 don't require ventilators. Flattening the curve buys time for all measures, including development of other treatment approaches.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    Your comment repeats the common wisdom from 2 weeks ago, but does not apply today. It does not stand up to any scrutiny.

redis_mlc 7y ago

No, 1/3 are not expected to survive. If you read the article, they're expecting 90% to either die or have organ damage. So out of 50 patients, they's expecting 2 patients to walk out of the hospital with some kind of normal life. Ventlators don't appear to tbe the answer beyond, "Well, we tried to do something. Too bad they don't work." The additional problem is that using ineffective ventilators kills your hospital staff for little gain. In SARs-1 (2002) in Toronto, more hospital staff got infected or died than in the general population. Hospital ventilation systems circulate airborne diseases. Now that we have data that ventilators don't work, we need to look at what the next steps are. There's no point in destroying the economy waiting for ventilators when they're not a treatment for corona virus.

yodon 7y ago
Your analysis that ventilators don't work may be valid. Your conclusion that therefor trying to flatten the curve is useless is dangerously invalid. Most people who come down with Covid-19 don't require ventilators. Flattening the curve buys time for all measures, including development of other treatment approaches.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  Your comment repeats the common wisdom from 2 weeks ago, but does not apply today. It does not stand up to any scrutiny.