5 ms·

Death tolls require some time to go up. If you lift lockdown, lots of people get infects. It takes a few days, maybe a week to show symptoms bad enough to go t

by zaarn 6y ago

Death tolls require some time to go up. If you lift lockdown, lots of people get infects. It takes a few days, maybe a week to show symptoms bad enough to go to a doctor for testing. This is the point in time when cases begin to go up. Imagine if you lifted the lockdown for a day and went back. One to two weeks after that, people will get more seriously ill, requiring hospitalization. Initially this can be treated easy at a (presumably) low-load hospital with no issue, the death toll is low. One more week and you have the majority of cases in the hospital, this is where most people will die. A month after you lifted the lockdown. Now imagine not locking down after that one day. After 1 month, you're at the peak of Day 1 infections, the next day the peak of day 2 infections etc. It compounds fast and can overwhelm a hospital. Once a hospital is unable to care for all patients properly, triage will be applied. People with good recovery chances will receive treatment, those who are risk groups will not. That's when your death toll will explode very suddenly.

matz1 6y ago
Of course, the death require some time to show up, some time in 2 weeks, some time in 70 years... Hospital are frequently overwhelmed even before this particular virus, its not new and yet we didn't require shutdown back then.
- zaarn 6y ago
  Well, most direct deaths show fairly fast after the patient has died. There are some indirect damages that might kill someone 70 years on but we don't know that yet. The issue isn't how long it takes "for death to show up", it's that patients who are infected don't drop dead on the spot. They develop symptoms, go to a doctor, get bad enough to be forced in to a hospital, treatment stops helping until eventually the succumb to the condition. That can take a while, especially if doctors are fighting for the patients life. And yes, sometimes hospitals can be overwhelmed by single events, though in the US this seems to be an issue of lack of social healthcare than anything, but generally there isn't a single disease that puts hospitals into a state of triage (that is until Covid when hospitals in various places in the world did have to triage)
  - matz1 6y ago
    Yes, all disease could have delayed death/long lasting permanent damage. And in regard with hospital overwhelmed, its nothing new, this is from 2018, hospital have to setup triage tents: https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
    - yesplorer 6y ago
      Triage tents don't fall from the sky. They require extensive planning and logistics. And sometimes you build them and they go unused as has been done during this very pandemic because luckily predictions were wrong.[0] [0] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2020/04/29/many-field-hospitals-went-largely-unused-will-be-shut-down/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2020/04/29/ma...
      - matz1 6y ago
        Um yes, i didn't argue that it shows up magically.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      Triage tent != Triage. A triage tent is used to sort patients between codes, ie emergencies and non-emergencies when space inside the hospital is unavailable. Actual triage means when the hospital itself rejects patients because they do not have the resources to treat everyone anymore. From what it reads in the article, the hospitals weren't unable to treat patients on that level yet. >Yes, all disease could have delayed death/long lasting permanent damage. And we don't know what Covid-19 brings but that isn't even the point so I'm wondering why you brought it up anyway.
      - matz1 6y ago
        I'm responding to the hospital being overwhelmed, not specifically about the tent. My point is at the current situation the hospital is no more overwhelmed then what has happened in the past. >And we don't know what Covid-19 brings Yes but we can learn from previous similar virus in the past and decision to lockdown should not be taken lightly. Unless this virus has death rate of ebola then there should not be lockdown.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  Flip between the "cases" and "deaths" chart. It's become obvious that Texas and Florida now starting to suffer in deaths for the surge in cases last month. It would appear to take more than 2 weeks, but it's clearly there. https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+covid+19+cases https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+covid+19+cases https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+coid+19+cases https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+coid+19+cases
  - matz1 6y ago
    even with the uptick the us death rate overall is still very low ~0.04%, where majority the cases are the old people. Inline with what has been estimated by most research publication.
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      That feels a bit like moving the goal post - you asked where the deaths were, and based upon the graph they are coming. When you say a stat like that you need to caveat it - is that 0.04% of the total population? Case fatality? Infection fatality? It's also not looking forward - today's total values aren't particularly useful when we can obviously see that the situation has been continually evolving.
      - matz1 6y ago
        0.04% of the total population 145k out of 340 million. We can also see from Sweeden that the death rate are declining and that without lockdown.
        SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        But that number is nonsensical in determining what actions we should take - it only has some questionable value if we look at it after the whole thing is over and the virus is long gone. Not everyone in America has been exposed to this virus, and many of those who have been exposed haven't run the full course of the disease. It's as useful as saying that in August of last year no one was infected and so it clearly would never kill anyone.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Hospital are frequently overwhelmed even before this particular virus Not on the level of local, or even less statewide, hospital systems. It's true that the US is particularly vulnerable to things like this because the structure of the healthcare system leaves very little slack capacity, but healthcare systems at, say, the county level are not routinely exceeding all available ICU, ventilator, etc., capacity (because of the insurance-network based way that hospital preferences are often driven, rather than intelligent capacity-and-location-based distribution, it's probably more common that individual hospitals hit capacity when the local system as a whole is in fine shape, though.) > its not new and yet we didn't require shutdown back then Even if the premise was true, which as noted it's not, this argument overlooks that if capacity exhaustion wasn't driven by a particular easily communicable disease, a shutdown wouldn't do anything to manage it. The shutdown is not due to the healthcare system situation alone, but the combination of situation and the contribution of COVID-19 to the situation.
  - matz1 6y ago
    >Not on the level of local, or even less statewide, hospital systems In 2018 : https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      That the only example you can find is the worst US flu season in recent history with about double the impact on most measures of a typical year pretty much disproves your “frequeently” claim all by itself. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html Given the nature of seasonal flu, it's quite likely that by the time that was noticed, the impact lag time of any control measures would have made them pointless, but maybe there is an argument that control measures would also have been warranted in 2017-2018. But, in any case, health systems in the US being overwhelmed, at the local community—at least urban and suburban, the rural situation can be worse because of the impact of variations when small numbers are involved—is not, contrary to your claim, a frequent occurrence.

by zaarn 6y ago

matz1 6y ago

Of course, the death require some time to show up, some time in 2 weeks, some time in 70 years... Hospital are frequently overwhelmed even before this particular virus, its not new and yet we didn't require shutdown back then.

zaarn 6y ago
Well, most direct deaths show fairly fast after the patient has died. There are some indirect damages that might kill someone 70 years on but we don't know that yet. The issue isn't how long it takes "for death to show up", it's that patients who are infected don't drop dead on the spot. They develop symptoms, go to a doctor, get bad enough to be forced in to a hospital, treatment stops helping until eventually the succumb to the condition. That can take a while, especially if doctors are fighting for the patients life. And yes, sometimes hospitals can be overwhelmed by single events, though in the US this seems to be an issue of lack of social healthcare than anything, but generally there isn't a single disease that puts hospitals into a state of triage (that is until Covid when hospitals in various places in the world did have to triage)
- matz1 6y ago
  Yes, all disease could have delayed death/long lasting permanent damage. And in regard with hospital overwhelmed, its nothing new, this is from 2018, hospital have to setup triage tents: https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
  - yesplorer 6y ago
    Triage tents don't fall from the sky. They require extensive planning and logistics. And sometimes you build them and they go unused as has been done during this very pandemic because luckily predictions were wrong.[0] [0] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2020/04/29/many-field-hospitals-went-largely-unused-will-be-shut-down/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2020/04/29/ma...
    - matz1 6y ago
      Um yes, i didn't argue that it shows up magically.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    Triage tent != Triage. A triage tent is used to sort patients between codes, ie emergencies and non-emergencies when space inside the hospital is unavailable. Actual triage means when the hospital itself rejects patients because they do not have the resources to treat everyone anymore. From what it reads in the article, the hospitals weren't unable to treat patients on that level yet. >Yes, all disease could have delayed death/long lasting permanent damage. And we don't know what Covid-19 brings but that isn't even the point so I'm wondering why you brought it up anyway.
    - matz1 6y ago
      I'm responding to the hospital being overwhelmed, not specifically about the tent. My point is at the current situation the hospital is no more overwhelmed then what has happened in the past. >And we don't know what Covid-19 brings Yes but we can learn from previous similar virus in the past and decision to lockdown should not be taken lightly. Unless this virus has death rate of ebola then there should not be lockdown.
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
Flip between the "cases" and "deaths" chart. It's become obvious that Texas and Florida now starting to suffer in deaths for the surge in cases last month. It would appear to take more than 2 weeks, but it's clearly there. https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+covid+19+cases https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+covid+19+cases https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+coid+19+cases https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+coid+19+cases
- matz1 6y ago
  even with the uptick the us death rate overall is still very low ~0.04%, where majority the cases are the old people. Inline with what has been estimated by most research publication.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    That feels a bit like moving the goal post - you asked where the deaths were, and based upon the graph they are coming. When you say a stat like that you need to caveat it - is that 0.04% of the total population? Case fatality? Infection fatality? It's also not looking forward - today's total values aren't particularly useful when we can obviously see that the situation has been continually evolving.
    - matz1 6y ago
      0.04% of the total population 145k out of 340 million. We can also see from Sweeden that the death rate are declining and that without lockdown.
      - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        But that number is nonsensical in determining what actions we should take - it only has some questionable value if we look at it after the whole thing is over and the virus is long gone. Not everyone in America has been exposed to this virus, and many of those who have been exposed haven't run the full course of the disease. It's as useful as saying that in August of last year no one was infected and so it clearly would never kill anyone.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Hospital are frequently overwhelmed even before this particular virus Not on the level of local, or even less statewide, hospital systems. It's true that the US is particularly vulnerable to things like this because the structure of the healthcare system leaves very little slack capacity, but healthcare systems at, say, the county level are not routinely exceeding all available ICU, ventilator, etc., capacity (because of the insurance-network based way that hospital preferences are often driven, rather than intelligent capacity-and-location-based distribution, it's probably more common that individual hospitals hit capacity when the local system as a whole is in fine shape, though.) > its not new and yet we didn't require shutdown back then Even if the premise was true, which as noted it's not, this argument overlooks that if capacity exhaustion wasn't driven by a particular easily communicable disease, a shutdown wouldn't do anything to manage it. The shutdown is not due to the healthcare system situation alone, but the combination of situation and the contribution of COVID-19 to the situation.
- matz1 6y ago
  >Not on the level of local, or even less statewide, hospital systems In 2018 : https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    That the only example you can find is the worst US flu season in recent history with about double the impact on most measures of a typical year pretty much disproves your “frequeently” claim all by itself. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html Given the nature of seasonal flu, it's quite likely that by the time that was noticed, the impact lag time of any control measures would have made them pointless, but maybe there is an argument that control measures would also have been warranted in 2017-2018. But, in any case, health systems in the US being overwhelmed, at the local community—at least urban and suburban, the rural situation can be worse because of the impact of variations when small numbers are involved—is not, contrary to your claim, a frequent occurrence.