Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
20% of the people infected need to be hospitalized. I think I read that 20% of those 20% were of the ages 20-40 here in NY. Is that a small amount of people to save? If you were one of those 20% would you sacrifice your life as to not the hospitals?
20% infected *are* hospitalized or 20% infected *need to be* hospitalized?
Asking a serious question. Do you have any data that putting them in a hospital bed for two weeks makes any significant difference in the outcome, given that there are no approved medicines? Are most of the people dying in Italy those not hospitalized? What exacty would be the outcome of a "treat at home" policy for most of that 20%?
20% infected *are* hospitalized or 20% infected *need to be* hospitalized?
Asking a serious question. Do you have any data that putting them in a hospital bed for two weeks makes any significant difference in the outcome, given that there are no approved medicines? Are most of the people dying in Italy those not hospitalized? What exacty would be the outcome of a "treat at home" policy for most of that 20%?
They have respirators in hospitals. Most people don't have respirators in their homes.
Yes, well, some of us "old and sick" people would like to extend our lives as long as possible by avoiding getting the Covid-19 virus any way we can. If it takes staying in our homes for a lengthy amount of time, so be it. It's really easy to talk about people dying when they're other people, isn't it?
Fine, sentence your children and grandchildren to lives of poverty. Nothing in a functioning economy is preventing the vulnerable like you from staying in your homes for a lengthy time.
They have respirators in hospitals. Most people don't have respirators in their homes.
How many need respirators and what difference in the outcome do they make? I doubt we have the data yet but if you do have it, share it. Maybe all the respirator is doing is making it take 7 days to die instead of 4.
How many need respirators and what difference in the outcome do they make? I doubt we have the data yet but if you do have it, share it. Maybe all the respirator is doing is making it take 7 days to die instead of 4.
There are people who are put on respirators in hospitals who do survive.
I suppose we'll never know if they would have survived if they hadn't been put on respirators, but I'd say chances are, the mere fact they were put on respirators would indicate they had the virus really bad, and probably, would not have survived without a respirator.
We don't want to surrender to a germ. That is why we are locking down. Are you figuring out this yet?
Is this the new norm? Are we going to lock down the world every few years when there is an outbreak? Some expertd are saying it could takes us a decade or more to economically recover from this. It's not a hit the economy can take and overcome over and over.
We’re shutting down the economy so that we don’t overwhelm the hospitals. The Coronavirus has a 20% hospitalization rate. And the average hospital stay is twice as long as the flu.
How long is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mephariel
Again, I don't know how dumb you are. Italy have a lock down that still allows people to travel and get essential supplies, do essential work, etc, and they live very close together. The Italians themselves said that they didn't take this treat and the lock down serious enough. If anything, Italy needs to lock down MORE and enforce the lock down more, not less.
Again, imagine if you are a leader of Italy and you are this stupid. "Don't have a lock downs. Thousands are dying anyway. Let's just spread the virus some more."
In that case the only way to lock it down more is to force people to go without essentials. What could go wrong with that?
There are people who are put on respirators in hospitals who do survive.
I suppose we'll never know if they would have survived if they hadn't been put on respirators, but I'd say chances are, the mere fact they were put on respirators would indicate they had the virus really bad, and probably, would not have survived without a respirator.
Are you guestimating or do you have data? What percentage go on respirators and survive? Talking strictly about COVID-19.
20% infected *are* hospitalized or 20% infected *need to be* hospitalized?
Asking a serious question. Do you have any data that putting them in a hospital bed for two weeks makes any significant difference in the outcome, given that there are no approved medicines? Are most of the people dying in Italy those not hospitalized? What exacty would be the outcome of a "treat at home" policy for most of that 20%?
I am seeing 20% of those we know have the virus are currently or have been hospitalized. So there are probably much less as we only really know of a fraction of those that have it. Most of the people who needed hospitalization needed oxygen (low levels). CDC reported that 40% of patients sick enough to be hospitalized where between the ages of 20 to 54 but the risk of dying was significantly higher for older people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
