Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#21,477
#21,477
I40flyer said:
I have little doubt that is not as big a deal as the flu, when you compare total deaths in the USA. When we compare for a full year, the flu, as it has been for decades, will be the boss. Of course this doesn't "take the place" of the flu, but if total deaths in the USA is your number one concern, the FLU is a, (as Joe Biden would say about Corn Pop) "Bad Dude". In all honesty I don't know if that was before of after he played with the hair on biden's legs, or sat on his lap.
Click to expand...

If we let this get anywhere close to the total case count for a seasonal flu be about 8x more deaths - and that is if everyone could get access to hospitals and ICUs. Which they couldn’t. So it would be higher.

For the record, I’m saying 8x because I’m currently using 0.8% fatality rate assuming good health care for COVID-19. That is based on the Princess Diamond passengers who were thoroughly tested and adjusting for the demographics since cruises skew older than gen pop. I’m comparing that to the established seasonal flu mortality rate of 0.1%.
 
#21,478
#21,478
Stew Cook said:
Yeah I figure US passenger air travel will be shut down within the week.
Click to expand...
That will really spur the panic, but I fear it's needed at this point. Some of the larger metro areas healthcare systems are on the verge of inundation from what I gather.
 
#21,480
#21,480
TennTradition said:
I’ve got one guy in this thread going after Obama for not enforcing widespread quarantines in 2009 to prevent what turned out to be 12,000 US deaths over the course of a year and I’ve got you making abstract points that seem to be implying SARS-CoV-2 isn’t a big deal (apparently even if it’s killing a thousand people a day by next week as we are currently trending before) because people die of other reasons.

Champions of VolNation on late shift tonight I see.
Click to expand...

All you need to know is that Trump has it under control, and if you don't believe that, you want people to die. Also, any projections of things getting worse are an assault on Trump, and you want people to die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and TennTradition
#21,481
#21,481
TennTradition said:
My statement is fact, I don’t have to worry about manning up whatever that means.

We will pass 12,000 deaths within the next two weeks if we stay on the currently established trend. That’s just mathematical fact. And that’s all I said.
Click to expand...
AT least you are HONEST when you cleared the air regarding manning-up and not knowing what it means. But speaking of mathematical fact, we lost over 100 Americans/DAY in auto accidents prior to all the "stay at home" orders. The mathematical projection of the number of deaths due to auto accidents has changed for the period of the "stay at home". Huge increase in the number of daily tests, the "new" drug treatments etc. will have an effect (for the better), thus rendering the mathematical projection useless. By the Way, did you see the mathematical projections made a month ago? To look at them now, makes one hope those making them sought help for their drug problem!
 
#21,482
#21,482
KB5252 said:
That will really spur the panic, but I fear it's needed at this point. Some of the larger metro areas healthcare systems are on the verge of inundation from what I gather.
Click to expand...

I'd guess there will be exceptions, but it looks like it's headed that way if things persist as they are.

But yeah, it would add to the panic, I'm sure.
 
#21,483
#21,483
Stew Cook said:
All you need to know is that Trump has it under control, and if you don't believe that, you want people to die. Also, any projections of things getting worse are an assault on Trump, and you want people to die.
Click to expand...
As the leader, yes indeed, Trump has it under control. Look at the EU, and ask them how their leadership has done, and do they wish they had a leader as good as Pres. Trump.
 
#21,486
#21,486
508mikey said:
read the comments under the article some are much worse that on VN
Click to expand...
I don’t care about the comments. You literally have major hospitals who are debating running with just let them die. The comparison to the flu is illogical. It would be similar if a large percentage of people who got the flu, all got it once, and it were crushing hospitals. That’s the whole point. You all keep parading our yearly numbers for flu deaths. Not relevant. Where we are having hot spots it’s crushing hospitals and the doctors and nurses don’t even have the protective gear they need .
And if you think this isn’t going to kill more people then the flu this year then you are either bad at math, assuming we don’t have a second round, or stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo, InVOLuntary, Behr and 3 others
#21,487
#21,487
Stew Cook said:
I'd guess there will be exceptions, but it looks like it's headed that way if things persist as they are.

But yeah, it would add to the panic, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Maybe those patients that can be transported to hospitals that are not in the metro area could solve a big part of the problem. 10 counties have over 60% of those effected. The rest of the US is okay.
 
Last edited:
#21,488
#21,488
I40flyer said:
AT least you are HONEST when you cleared the air regarding manning-up and not knowing what it means. But speaking of mathematical fact, we lost over 100 Americans/DAY in auto accidents prior to all the "stay at home" orders. The mathematical projection of the number of deaths due to auto accidents has changed for the period of the "stay at home". Huge increase in the number of daily tests, the "new" drug treatments etc. will have an effect (for the better), thus rendering the mathematical projection useless. By the Way, did you see the mathematical projections made a month ago? To look at them now, makes one hope those making them sought help for their drug problem!
Click to expand...

The machismo just seems silly when the statement stands for itself. There is no need to revisit.

Now if you want to ask me if I think that’s what WILL happen, then that’s tougher. I saw a study today on chloroquine but it was only 30 patients. The outcome was a wash with patients doing slightly better without it. I’m not sure if that included the co-dosed z-pack though. Hospitals are just getting more overloaded so I don’t see ability to deliver care improving over the next week. And infections haven’t slowed yet. The patients who got infected with SARS-CoV-2 late last week are the ones that will be developing COVID-19 this late this week and dying next week.

So based on that I’m worried that we will indeed cross the 5,000 mark by the middle of next week. I’m hoping that the week after that we will begin to see quarantine efforts pay off and slow the rising death rate.
 
#21,490
#21,490
I40flyer said:
Maybe those patients that can be transported to hospitals that are no in the metro area could solve a big part of the problem. 10 counties have over 60% of those effected. The rest of the US is okay.
Click to expand...

I’ve been wondering about this. Can you start moving the hospitalized at-risk before they need an ICU bed?
 
#21,492
#21,492
volfanhill said:
I don’t care about the comments. You literally have major hospitals who are debating running with just let them die. The comparison to the flu is illogical. It would be similar if a large percentage of people who got the flu, all got it once, and it were crushing hospitals. That’s the whole point. You all keep parading our yearly numbers for flu deaths. Not relevant. Where we are having hot spots it’s crushing hospitals and the doctors and nurses don’t even have the protective gear they need .
And if you think this isn’t going to kill more people then the flu this year then you are either bad at math, assuming we don’t have a second round, or stupid.
Click to expand...
No you are not, your statement is false. Some Hospitals are debating what to do if the crazy, doom and gloom, left wing, nuts are right. They are discussing what to do as a LAST RESORT, if the "new" meds don't work (but they are working), if all hospitals where patients could be transported to near by facilities, and those facilities are full (they are not), if the U.S. Navy's hospital ships are suddenly full, etc. Your statement is Logical if you are trying to spread fear, and hoping it harms Pres. Trump. When ever the "total yearly deaths" number is brought forward, you and those like you, slip and slide to another avenue of attack. Some may think it is clever, the problem is, we all see it.
 
#21,493
#21,493
TennTradition said:
I’ve been wondering about this. Can you start moving the hospitalized at-risk before they need an ICU bed?
Click to expand...
Hell yes, people with bullet holes in their bodies can be transported, and they NEED and ICU bed. Someone walks into a hospital sick, the Doctor decides this person needs to be admitted, but we're full, transport them to X, and as it goes.
 
#21,494
#21,494
I40flyer said:
No you are not, your statement is false. Some Hospitals are debating what to do if the crazy, doom and gloom, left wing, nuts are right. They are discussing what to do as a LAST RESORT, if the "new" meds don't work (but they are working), if all hospitals where patients could be transported to near by facilities, and those facilities are full (they are not), if the U.S. Navy's hospital ships are suddenly full, etc. Your statement is Logical if you are trying to spread fear, and hoping it harms Pres. Trump. When ever the "total yearly deaths" number is brought forward, you and those like you, slip and slide to another avenue of attack. Some may think it is clever, the problem is, we all see it.
Click to expand...
now I notice the author of the story he linked
 
  • Like
Reactions: I40flyer
#21,495
#21,495
I40flyer said:
Hell yes, people with bullet holes in their bodies can be transported, and they NEED and ICU bed. Someone walks into a hospital sick, the Doctor decides this person needs to be admitted, but we're full, transport them to X, and as it goes.
Click to expand...

I didn’t mean that to come across as an actual question of can they be transported. But, rather, is it on the table and being considered to start moving stable patients out of the metros and to hospitals 50-100 miles away?
 
#21,496
#21,496
I40flyer said:
No you are not, your statement is false. Some Hospitals are debating what to do if the crazy, doom and gloom, left wing, nuts are right. They are discussing what to do as a LAST RESORT, if the "new" meds don't work (but they are working), if all hospitals where patients could be transported to near by facilities, and those facilities are full (they are not), if the U.S. Navy's hospital ships are suddenly full, etc. Your statement is Logical if you are trying to spread fear, and hoping it harms Pres. Trump. When ever the "total yearly deaths" number is brought forward, you and those like you, slip and slide to another avenue of attack. Some may think it is clever, the problem is, we all see it.
Click to expand...

As far as I’ve seen I agree with your point on they are worried about having to do this - not that they already are.
 
#21,497
#21,497
TennTradition said:
I didn’t mean that to come across as an actual question of can they be transported. But, rather, is it on the table and being considered to start moving stable patients out of the metros and to hospitals 50-100 miles away?
Click to expand...
TennTradition said:
I didn’t mean that to come across as an actual question of can they be transported. But, rather, is it on the table and being considered to start moving stable patients out of the metros and to hospitals 50-100 miles away?
Click to expand...
I can't imagine they are not, unless the hospitals are being run by politicos. I'm convinced the doom and gloom crowd thinks that the more people die, the worse the economy is, the better chance the dems will have at electing a dem President. They don't care how much carnage is necessary to get that power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey
#21,498
#21,498
I40flyer said:
I can't imagine they are not, unless the hospitals are being run by politicos. I'm convinced the doom and gloom crowd thinks that the more people die, the worse the economy is, the better chance the dems will have at electing a dem President. They don't care how much carnage is necessary to get that power.
Click to expand...

I think that political operatives will always seize on political opportunity. But I don’t believe anyone wants to see this balloon into hundreds of thousands of deaths.

As for the transport, I’ve been curious about it for several days and have been looking for articles discussing it but can’t find anything concrete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob and Stew Cook
#21,499
#21,499
I40flyer said:
Maybe those patients that can be transported to hospitals that are not in the metro area could solve a big part of the problem. 10 counties have over 60% of those effected. The rest of the US is okay.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that by the time an infected person requires a ventilator, which is why they need to be in an ICU, moving the patient isn't an option.

If there were a way to predict which patients were going to ultimately need a ventialtor, then I suppose patients could be moved. I just see moving patients as being a nightmare of logistics. Bringing ventilators, medical personel, and equipment to the hot spots seems more feasible, but if the virus can't be contained it all goes to hell anyway.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top