4 ms·
I mean it's really simple. No lockdown => hospitals overwhelmed => people can't get care they need or people avoid hospitals to avoid getting sick => excess de
by fzeroracer 6y ago
I mean it's really simple.
No lockdown => hospitals overwhelmed => people can't get care they need or people avoid hospitals to avoid getting sick => excess deaths
Lockdown => hospitals less overwhelmed => people avoid hospitals due to lockdown or to avoid getting sick => excess deaths (but less than the no lockdown scenario)
Here in Austin our medical community is practically begging us to take better precautions because our hospital system is starting to hit capacity due to the second wave we're staring down [1]. Saying it's not 'accepted' in the medical community seems wrong.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4kCwo1JMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4kCwo1JMc
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>No lockdown => hospitals overwhelmed => people can't get care they need or people avoid hospitals to avoid getting sick => excess deaths >Lockdown => hospitals less overwhelmed => people avoid hospitals due to lockdown or to avoid getting sick => excess deaths (but less than the no lockdown scenario) Right, but eventually as things taper off there's a crossover point where the first option will have less deaths going forward. Where that crossover point is the point of contention.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoReally? how exactly would people go to hospital if they are already overwhelmed& Like, have their cancer surgery in hospital cafeteria?
- fzeroracer 6y agoWell, no, because we see what happens when we try and go over the crossover point here in Austin. COVID-19 rates go up, hospitals become overwhelmed again and then people avoid hospitals or the people that need to go can't. Which then means you have to go into lockdown again while people yell at you for going into lockdown not understanding that the alternative was made nonviable due to them not taking basic precautions.