3 ms·

how long have aging and accidents been around? since the dawn of the human race? and they still haven't figured out a way to handle the ICU load? you would th

how long have aging and accidents been around? since the dawn of the human race? and they still haven't figured out a way to handle the ICU load? you would think with all kinds of random unplanned disasters happening all over at any time ..like terrorist attacks or earthquakes or tornadoes... they would be able to increase capacity by 20% the problem is not covid patients, the problem is either a poorly planned system or news media sensationalism

joshuamorton 5y ago
> ..like terrorist attacks or earthquakes or tornadoes... they would be able to increase capacity by 20% They can, for brief periods. You start by overflowing to nearby hospitals, you can't do that for covid though, because its global. So you try to drop non-urgent care, but they've already done that. You can't stop treating non-urgent care forever, it's only a temporary approach. So you're left with, well, reducing serious covid case rates. This can absolutely be done, by the way, with a combination of vaccination and varying masking policies as necessary. Because that's the only tool left after all of the others have been exhausted. > and they still haven't figured out a way to handle the ICU load? There is actually a really easy solution, it's just ethically terrible. You refuse (or triage last) unvaccinated covid patients. This solves most of the problems. It is however ethically unconscionable. > the problem is not covid patients, the problem is either a poorly planned system or news media sensationalism Yes, we all recognize that the global healthcare system is not able to handle a sustained 10-20% increase in demand. That doesn't make it "poorly planned" (are you willing to pay 20% extra in healthcare costs to cover the increased slack?)
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  I think you might think your opinions are facts. You say everything like you have the singular objective answers beyond a shadow of a doubt even if your ideas are just one of many possibilitys.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

joshuamorton 5y ago

> ..like terrorist attacks or earthquakes or tornadoes... they would be able to increase capacity by 20% They can, for brief periods. You start by overflowing to nearby hospitals, you can't do that for covid though, because its global. So you try to drop non-urgent care, but they've already done that. You can't stop treating non-urgent care forever, it's only a temporary approach. So you're left with, well, reducing serious covid case rates. This can absolutely be done, by the way, with a combination of vaccination and varying masking policies as necessary. Because that's the only tool left after all of the others have been exhausted. > and they still haven't figured out a way to handle the ICU load? There is actually a really easy solution, it's just ethically terrible. You refuse (or triage last) unvaccinated covid patients. This solves most of the problems. It is however ethically unconscionable. > the problem is not covid patients, the problem is either a poorly planned system or news media sensationalism Yes, we all recognize that the global healthcare system is not able to handle a sustained 10-20% increase in demand. That doesn't make it "poorly planned" (are you willing to pay 20% extra in healthcare costs to cover the increased slack?)

edmcnulty101 5y ago
I think you might think your opinions are facts. You say everything like you have the singular objective answers beyond a shadow of a doubt even if your ideas are just one of many possibilitys.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]