The Coronavirus, not the beer

thethe said:
This is not what your original stance was and that's the point. We did not close because we thought lots of people were going to die. It was always about the drain on the system and pretending otherwise is revisionist history
Click to expand...

HEY IDIOT...

Was Trump talking about treatments we low IQ folks can't possibly comprehend, or was he just being sarcastic?
 
thethe said:
This is not what your original stance was and that's the point. We did not close because we thought lots of people were going to die. It was always about the drain on the system and pretending otherwise is revisionist history
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it was both. And NYC (and other hard hit areas) have seen a large strain on their health systems. I'm not sure what your point is.
 
thethe said:
This is not what your original stance was and that's the point. We did not close because we thought lots of people were going to die. It was always about the drain on the system and pretending otherwise is revisionist history
Click to expand...

It was about the medical system being overwhelmed, leading to more deaths than would be the case with a flatter curve.

I think there is a fair criticism about how the IHME modeled the need for ICU beds and ventilators.

They forecast deaths and applied multiples to it to get ICU beds and ventilators. They got those multiples from the CDC. And should have been quicker to adjust them downward as the data came in.

But the reason the multiples came in lower is New York City hospitals (and something similar happened in Madrid) became very picky about who they admitted. This allowed them to husband resources. But it also resulted in a yuge number of people dying without being able to get to a hospital. The hospitals in New York City were overwhelmed. Excess deaths resulted from that. But statistically it did not manifest itself in running out of beds or ventilators. It manifested itself in people dying at home.

It should be noted there is another (perhaps more important) reason for social distancing and closing non-essential businesses. Which is to buy time. Delaying the number of people who get sick or die in the hopes that a vaccine or treatments will be developed. This is a gamble. Some countries (notably Sweden) have not opted to go that way.

There are additional reasons, but they are more inside baseball. For example, it matters (in terms of saving lives) how many people are infected at the moment when herd immunity kicks it. It is better that this is a small number. So you try to flatten the curve.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
It was about the medical system being overwhelmed, leading to more deaths than would be the case with a flatter curve.

I think there is a fair criticism about how the IHME modeled the need for ICU beds and ventilators.

They forecast deaths and applied a multiple to it to get ICU beds and ventilators. They got that multiple from the CDC. And should have been quicker to adjust it as the data came in.

But the reason the multiple came in lower is New York City hospitals (and something similar happened in Madrid) became very picky about who they admitted. This allowed them to husband resources. But it also resulted in a yuge number of people dying without being able to get to a hospital. The hospitals in New York City were overwhelmed. Excess deaths resulted from that. But statistically it did not manifest itself in running out of beds or ventilators. It manifested itself in people dying at home.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that they are assigning deaths to people based on excess mortality but there hasn't been any reports if turning away needed people. Cuomo was adamant about that numerous times during his press conferences.
 
Carp said:
Pretty sure it was both. And NYC (and other hard hit areas) have seen a large strain on their health systems. I'm not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the large strain. It was still not close to what was expected.
 
thethe said:
My understanding is that they are assigning deaths to people based on excess mortality but there hasn't been any reports if turning away needed people. Cuomo was adamant about that numerous times during his press conferences.
Click to expand...

HEY IDIOT...

Was Trump talking about treatments we low IQ folks can't possibly comprehend, or was he just being sarcastic?
 
thethe said:
My understanding is that they are assigning deaths to people based on excess mortality but there hasn't been any reports if turning away needed people. Cuomo was adamant about that numerous times during his press conferences.
Click to expand...

People went in and were assessed and some were told to go home. I know one such person personally who was very sick. They X rayed his lungs and told him to go home. There was another group that stayed home the whole time based on what their doctors told them they should do, and they died at home.
 
nsacpi said:
People went in and were assessed and some were told to go home. I know one such person personally who was very sick. They X rayed his lungs and told him to go home. There was another group that stayed home the whole time based on what their doctors told them they should do, and they died at home.
Click to expand...

The later point is valid but how do we know how material that figure is currently?
 
thethe said:
The later point is valid but how do we know how material that figure is currently?
Click to expand...

It's the group of people currently labeled presumptive or whatever. In New York City I believe the number is now around 5,000. I'm not sure how often it gets updated.

It will take a while to sort all of this out using the mortality data. And people will probably continue to debate the numbers. Like they debate how many died in Puerto Rico during and after the hurricane.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
It's the group of people currently labeled presumptive or whatever. In New York City I believe the number is now around 5,000. I'm not sure how often it gets updated.

It will take a while to sort all of this out using the mortality data. And people will probably continue to debate the numbers. Like they debate how many died in Puerto Rico during and after the hurricane.
Click to expand...

I think that's assigned a bit much in the bracket of should have been a regular hospitalization but was discouraged or turned away.

The models were bad for hospitalizations. The whole point of the movement to re open is that death is terrible but we cant just assign more value to certain deaths.

Then it becomes a question of did our actions cause more harm then the virus and my personal biased opinion is that we clearly have.
 
thethe said:
This is not what your original stance was and that's the point. We did not close because we thought lots of people were going to die. It was always about the drain on the system and pretending otherwise is revisionist history
Click to expand...

"my original stance"? ok, man... if you need to believe I was never worried about people dying, then... whatever.
 
thethe said:
My understanding is that they are assigning deaths to people based on excess mortality but there hasn't been any reports if turning away needed people. Cuomo was adamant about that numerous times during his press conferences.
Click to expand...

It's not that people are saying "this man needs a bed stat" and then rejecting them; it's that the standard used for admittance tightens up during triage conditions and that means the edge cases are getting denied a bed much more often. Some of them then die. I mean, there has been a decent amount of reporting on this recently. For example, today's NYT:

New York Put Recovering Virus Patients in Hotels. Soon, 4 Were Dead.

Also recently:

He Went to 3 Hospitals. When He Finally Got a Bed, It Was Too Late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top