> at that point something like 90% of invasively ventilated patients die. Remember that America in general is a lot more intervention-happy than other places.

> at that point something like 90% of invasively ventilated patients die. Remember that America in general is a lot more intervention-happy than other places. It's more important to "do something", even if that something is net-negative or net-neutral. And therefore, the survivor statistics of ventilated patients in the US is absolutely atrocious. Halfway down this page there's a diagram of survival rates of patients in ICU in Sweden by age group: https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/ https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/ As you can see, the survival stats are much better. 47% of the 80+ patients lives. 70% of the 60-79 group lives. 85% of the 40-59 age group lives. But as you can also see, the number of treated patients in the 80+ group is very small. And this is because doctors in Sweden place more weight on making sure the treatment does good, rather than opting for maximum intervention every single time. Of course, that has been interpreted as Sweden callously sacrificing the elderly by denying them care. But if the odds of a patient surviving a ventilator treatment is on par with the patient beating covid-19 on their own, and we know that ventilator treatment is harsh and cruel, it makes no sense to put them on a ventilator. But most people think of ICUs and ventilators as some sort of magical medical machine that always cures people as long as they get access to it, so therefore we have this weird focus on ICU capacity as if that's the most important factor for overall mortality.