3 ms·

Could you give me an example of a hospital in the US that ran out of ventilators? I'll wait. > Once it passes through the entire population, we could very well

Could you give me an example of a hospital in the US that ran out of ventilators? I'll wait. > Once it passes through the entire population, we could very well see 5-10x the deaths we've seen already, or even considerably more. That's 5 MILLION people dead from a single NEW cause. Are you speaking globally or in the US? If you think 5 million would die in the US, your upper bound is off by an order of magnitude.

hcknwscommenter 6y ago
Off by an order of magnitude if we take YOUR assumed IFR, which you literally admit you "pulled out of [your] ass." Off by an order of magnitude if we ignore the clear lessons of Bergamo, that once it gets roaring the healthcare system has to make suboptimal choices. In other words, I am not off by an order of magnitude. You want an example: watch this video https://youtu.be/bE68xVXf8Kw https://youtu.be/bE68xVXf8Kw . A primary source that entirely refutes your ridiculous assertions.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  When I said I pulled it out of my ass, I mean I examined the totality of seroprevalence surveys at the time and chose it as a sane average to work off of. So yes out of my ass, but in the sense that my argument doesn’t change if the IFR is .1% versus .7%. That’s what I meant. Unfortunately people like to myopically fixate on IFR as if the way we respond to .6% is fundamentally different from .3%. It’s not. You’re off by an order of magnitude because your estimate is more than twice what Ferguson’s paper estimated. Ferguson modelled worst case scenario in US as .9% IFR with 82% of pop infected for 2.2 million dead. Taking that IFR and adjusting for a HIT closer to 20-25% due to the new findings is how I got the statement that you are off by an order of magnitude. You are. Again your estimate is larger than the craziest doomer epidemiologists (Ferguson). If you respond, please make sure to address the last paragraph. And go read Ferguson if you haven’t. The paper is “wrong” but it’s a great upper bound for worst case scenario with no t cell cross reactivity and absurdly high IFR (thus why it’s a worst case). Ventilators were not a problem and the hysterical NYT video has not proven that whatsoever.
  - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    A calm ER doctor walking slowly through a COVID ward and mentioning the fact that they don't have enough ventilators is "hysterical." Whatever dude. Ferguson is the craziest doomer epidemiologist at estimating 0.9% IFR. Even though IFR in Bergamo was like 20%. Facts. Can you recognize them? Pulling IFR from spotty seroprevalence studies is a fine way of showing that you literally have no idea what you are writing about.

hcknwscommenter 6y ago

Off by an order of magnitude if we take YOUR assumed IFR, which you literally admit you "pulled out of [your] ass." Off by an order of magnitude if we ignore the clear lessons of Bergamo, that once it gets roaring the healthcare system has to make suboptimal choices. In other words, I am not off by an order of magnitude. You want an example: watch this video https://youtu.be/bE68xVXf8Kw https://youtu.be/bE68xVXf8Kw . A primary source that entirely refutes your ridiculous assertions.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
When I said I pulled it out of my ass, I mean I examined the totality of seroprevalence surveys at the time and chose it as a sane average to work off of. So yes out of my ass, but in the sense that my argument doesn’t change if the IFR is .1% versus .7%. That’s what I meant. Unfortunately people like to myopically fixate on IFR as if the way we respond to .6% is fundamentally different from .3%. It’s not. You’re off by an order of magnitude because your estimate is more than twice what Ferguson’s paper estimated. Ferguson modelled worst case scenario in US as .9% IFR with 82% of pop infected for 2.2 million dead. Taking that IFR and adjusting for a HIT closer to 20-25% due to the new findings is how I got the statement that you are off by an order of magnitude. You are. Again your estimate is larger than the craziest doomer epidemiologists (Ferguson). If you respond, please make sure to address the last paragraph. And go read Ferguson if you haven’t. The paper is “wrong” but it’s a great upper bound for worst case scenario with no t cell cross reactivity and absurdly high IFR (thus why it’s a worst case). Ventilators were not a problem and the hysterical NYT video has not proven that whatsoever.
- hcknwscommenter 6y ago
  A calm ER doctor walking slowly through a COVID ward and mentioning the fact that they don't have enough ventilators is "hysterical." Whatever dude. Ferguson is the craziest doomer epidemiologist at estimating 0.9% IFR. Even though IFR in Bergamo was like 20%. Facts. Can you recognize them? Pulling IFR from spotty seroprevalence studies is a fine way of showing that you literally have no idea what you are writing about.