• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

Status
Not open for further replies.
How can slowing the spread possibly result in more people dying? You know what will happen if everyone's sick at once. The sickest will just be triaged out by hospitals who don't have the resources to treat them.

It's the exact opposite. Extending it will reduce fatalities because we will be able to stretch our resources further.

As for closing schools and what the parents should do. They should stay home too. Unless they work in a critical area they should stay home too. Pay them to stay home. Everyone should be encouraged to stay home unless they have a medical need, or work in a critical area. This is one time where splashing out with the tax money is worth it.

Closing borders is already working. It will still help significantly even if some people try to leave quickly. Though that's why we shouldn't announce it too far ahead.

But the big thing I don't get is your suggestion to let it run its course. That's just crazy. How exactly is that supposed to reduce the number of dead? I haven't seen you make any argument for specifically why letting the health system become so overloaded that sick people are triaged out of treatment can possibly save lives.

Economically you're probably right that getting it over with would be better. I'd agree with that. But economies serve people not the other way around.
 
Novaveritas said
More people will probably die by extending the process and stopping other life saving interventions for an extended period of time that could actually save lives to spare resources for nCOV patients. Dragging this out stops the collapse of the health care system but it leaves a legacy of sicker people who were not treated for other conditions and that is serious.
Click to expand...

This is the exact opposite of the truth. If everyone contracts the virus at the same time the medical system will be over burdened and those who have serious complications will die due to lack of medical intervention. If the spread of the disease is slowed down there will be less people that need critical care services at any given time allowing more people to recover.
 
JessFR said:
How can slowing the spread possibly result in more people dying? You know what will happen if everyone's sick at once. The sickest will just be triaged out by hospitals who don't have the resources to treat them.

It's the exact opposite. Extending it will reduce fatalities because we will be able to stretch our resources further.

As for closing schools and what the parents should do. They should stay home too. Unless they work in a critical area they should stay home too. Pay them to stay home. Everyone should be encouraged to stay home unless they have a medical need, or work in a critical area. This is one time where splashing out with the tax money is worth it.

Closing borders is already working. It will still help significantly even if some people try to leave quickly. Though that's why we shouldn't announce it too far ahead.

But the big thing I don't get is your suggestion to let it run its course. That's just crazy. How exactly is that supposed to reduce the number of dead? I haven't seen you make any argument for specifically why letting the health system become so overloaded that sick people are triaged out of treatment can possibly save lives.

Economically you're probably right that getting it over with would be better. I'd agree with that. But economies serve people not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Because non critical operations (medical judgement) are already being delayed, they will be delayed for the duration of the outbreak, the legacy of that is that more people will die unneccesarily of of non covid stuff and the ripples of that will go on into the future. So by stretching the resources by flattening the curve, a few extra people will not die of nCOV but many others will die early as an indirect consequence. Long drawn out means that the medical services can appear to be operational and functional they aren't they are killing people in the future, it is nothing but can kicking. How long do you plan to draw it out for, weeks months years?

You also have to address that isolation and special hospital procedures will select for more agressive strains, and then concentrate those strains in hospitals over a long period, hospitals are incapable of maintaining even basic infection control so you are proposing breaking the hospital system for an extended period of time with an infectious nucleus of virulent strain. Now tell me that is not going to kill more people. it is unlikely that any western medical system can cope even with a low peak, there is not the resources, so why play dumb games to give appearance of coping.
 
It won't kill more people.

We would be doing it for months at most, not years. And putting off non essential medical treatment is what we SHOULD be doing.

Hospital treatment for covid is likely a BIG help in reducing fatalities. Not "a few".

And it still makes no sense because those people who need less urgent health care still won't get it because the hospital system will be overloaded.

By causing it to happen quicker, instead of having the health care system totally overwhelmed, it will be less overwhelmed. That can only he of help to everyone, and nothing you've said has made any sense to me as to why it wouldn't.

As for selecting for a deadlier strain. How? How exactly is that gonna happen? Because we are treating people who MIGHT happen to have a worse strain and then allowing them to pass it on?

Perhaps, I think it's really unlikely. Deadlier strains often self limit. And it's certainly nowhere near likely enough to justify just letting people die.

No, I don't agree. You're entitled to your opinion, but I still think it's crazy.

Fortunately the world's health experts seem to agree with me. Or rather I agree with them. Now I'm not saying "experts believe me so I'm right". Not at all, but I'm certainly glad we aren't likely to be going with your plan.

I mean no personal offense, but it seems crazy to deliberately let the health system totally get overwhelmed. I completely agree that in complex systems actions can have unforeseen consequences. But the unforeseen consequences here don't seem nearly likely enough to warrant not going ahead with it.
 
I really don't think you follow what I am saying, laser like focus on nCOV is distracting and it is indirectly killing people. Cancer operations are being delayed, heart operations are being delayed to make space for nCOV patients. Rather to keep high dependancy unit space available. Hospitals are not just there to deal with nCOV patients. That is what is being forgotten, people are sick for lots of different reasons autistic focus on nCOV is not helpful.

This is not elective surgery that is being delayed it is "non critical" surgery that if it is not done will result in the patient being dead. I have this from a horses mouth.

Wuhan gives us a good example for how you select for a more agressive strain in a hospital setting, China CDC have made clear comments to this effect. The staff in the hospital became vectors and the virus they transmitted was a particularly nasty variant.

The Chinese solution was to build hospitals and ship in staff and quarantine the staff.....I see no evidence of any plan afoot to do that in the west.

The virus will burn out of its own accord, irrespective but it would be wise not to kill a bunch of patients who don't have the disease du jour (nCOV) to make it look like the system works.
 
Last edited:
Although I am now retired I worked in healthcare for over 40 years and understand the implications.

You are missing the point. Difficult decisions are going go have to be made either way, it is better in the long run to mitigate the situation. now
 
I never suggested we should just stop treating anything unrelated to covid. Just that it's crazy to let it spread unabated.

Triage should still prioritize people who could die without treatment and who are likely to live with it, covid or no covid.

But by delaying the spread with these aggressive social isolation measures, we ensure that when the hospitals fill up with sick, we have more resources to treat them and anyone else who needs urgent care than if we just let it happen.

That's what I'm saying. Not that we shouldn't treat people who will die without treatment but could be saved with it, of course not. But we have to get as much out of our medical resources as we can.

That means we need to slow the spread so we don't have too many people coming in at the same time. To give us more time to increase medical capacity. We also need to fast track anyone with medical training to help with the overflow. Retired, still in training. We need as many bodies who can at least do something to enable the current staff to handle more urgent problems.

It will save many more lives than if we just let it hit us all at once. If we do that, many will die because we just don't have the resources to do anything.
 
JessFR said:
I never suggested we should just stop treating anything unrelated to covid. Just that it's crazy to let it spread unabated.

Triage should still prioritize people who could die without treatment and who are likely to live with it, covid or no covid.

But by delaying the spread with these aggressive social isolation measures, we ensure that when the hospitals fill up with sick, we have more resources to treat them and anyone else who needs urgent care than if we just let it happen.

That's what I'm saying. Not that we shouldn't treat people who will die without treatment but could be saved with it, of course not. But we have to get as much out of our medical resources as we can.

That means we need to slow the spread so we don't have too many people coming in at the same time. To give us more time to increase medical capacity.

It will save many more lives than if we just let it hit us all at once. If we do that, many will die because we just don't have the resources to do anything.
Click to expand...

I think you will find you lock up the capacity of the system for longer and increased mortality will be a fact, just it won't be chalked up to nCOV

There is no realistic way to increase ICU ventilator capacity in the time needed. so that is wishful thinking.

But you are definately making decisions that will kill people, in one group or another.

unless agressive social isolation gets R0 to practically nothing as soon as you release the restrictions it will run amok again. can kicking.
 
^ perhaps the u.s. would have been better prepared...

Trump Has Sabotaged America’s Coronavirus Response

As it improvises its way through a public health crisis, the United States has never been less prepared for a pandemic.

The epidemic control efforts unfolding today in China—including placing some 100 million citizens on lockdown, shutting down a national holiday, building enormous quarantine hospitals in days’ time, and ramping up 24-hour manufacturing of medical equipment—are indeed gargantuan. It’s impossible to watch them without wondering, “What would we do? How would my government respond if this virus spread across my country?”

For the United States, the answers are especially worrying because the government has intentionally rendered itself incapable. In 2018, the Trump administration fired the government’s entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure. In numerous phone calls and emails with key agencies across the U.S. government, the only consistent response I encountered was distressed confusion. If the United States still has a clear chain of command for pandemic response, the White House urgently needs to clarify what it is—not just for the public but for the government itself, which largely finds itself in the dark.
Click to expand...

alasdair
 
JessFR said:
It's the same odds as having the same number come up twice in a row if you roll a size sided dice twice.
Click to expand...
To be clear: there's a 17% chance (1 out of 6) of getting the same number twice in a row when rolling a six-sided die twice. There's a 2.77% percent chance (1 out of 36) of getting a specific number twice.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
I absolutely 100% do not fear dying. Been going out a lot. Realized this in my last series of near death experiences; I didn't WANT to die but did NOT care if I did.
Click to expand...

In some ways I miss being suicidal. Back then I wouldnt be afraid of dying at allm

But even so, it's not me I'm more afraid for. I'm afraid for my mother.

novaveritas said:
I think you will find you lock up the capacity of the system for longer and increased mortality will be a fact, just it won't be chalked up to nCOV

There is no realistic way to increase ICU ventilator capacity in the time needed. so that is wishful thinking.

But you are definately making decisions that will kill people, in one group or another.

unless agressive social isolation gets R0 to practically nothing as soon as you release the restrictions it will run amok again. can kicking.
Click to expand...

This is crazy. I still haven't seen any clear explanation for exactly how letting it all hit us at once can possibly cause more deaths than slowing it down. It makes no sense.

No we can't increase capacity to where we need it in time. But that's not the point, we need to do everything we can. Not just do nothing because we can't do as much as we'd like.

It makes absolutely zero sense to me that letting the hospitals get so over capacity that huge numbers aren't treated could ever result in fewer deaths than if we slowed the spread down so it spreads slower and the strain on the capacity is lessened.

It makes no sense and I still haven't seen a clear argument for why that would be the case. Sorry if you've made one already and I just missed it, but all I've seen is "people who are sick with other illnesses might not be treated", which I already addressed. And the increased lethality argument which I think is highly dubious at best.

S.J.B. said:
To be clear: there's a 17% chance (1 out of 6) of getting the same number twice in a row when rolling a six-sided die twice. There's a 2.77% percent chance (1 out of 36) of getting a specific number twice.
Click to expand...

Yes. You're correct, my bad. I'd still say that's way more alarming to people than just saying 2.77%. And that we should be using more relatable language in communicating the risks.
 
JessFR said:
In some ways I miss being suicidal. Back then I wouldnt be afraid of dying at allm

But even so, it's not me I'm more afraid for. I'm afraid for my mother.



This is crazy. I still haven't seen any clear explanation for exactly how letting it all hit us at once can possibly cause more deaths than slowing it down. It makes no sense.

No we can't increase capacity to where we need it in time. But that's not the point, we need to do everything we can. Not just do nothing because we can't do as much as we'd like.

It makes absolutely zero sense to me that letting the hospitals get so over capacity that huge numbers aren't treated could ever result in fewer deaths than if we slowed the spread down so it spreads slower and the strain on the capacity is lessened.

It makes no sense and I still haven't seen a clear argument for why that would be the case. Sorry if you've made one already and I just missed it, but all I've seen is "people who are sick with other illnesses might not be treated", which I already addressed. And the increased lethality argument which I think is highly dubious at best.



Yes. You're correct, my bad. I'd still say that's way more alarming to people than just saying 2.77%. And that we should be using more relatable language in communicating the risks.
Click to expand...

It won't hit all at once because people will be infected at different times, however it will hit pretty much all at once if you have isolation, with limited mixing and slow build of multiple reservoirs( Inoculation sources) and then suddenly do complete mixing of these sources with the population when you release the restrictions, that is basic epidemiology. Or to put it another way it is can kicking. incubation period is up to 28 days and often asymptomatic so how many infection cycles are you going to isolate for? one two three ten? how many
 
JessFR said:
It's pretty bad. I can't deny that I'm a bit scared at the moment. I think it'd be hard not to be right now even if a lot of us are trying not to show it.

Probably everyone's hoping they'll be one of those people who don't even realize they have it. The lucky bastards.

I suspect a lot of other people like me are as much or more worried about older relatives. I'm worried for my mother.

It's pretty surreal how this has changed the whole world so fast. The only other time like this I've lived through was 9/11, and I was like 12 then.

I think it was probably around 06 when I would probably have been about 17 during that h5n1 scare that I learned that a flu pandemic like 1918 would eventually happen again. H5n1 as it turned out just couldn't make the jump and reduce in mortality enough to be a problem. But since then it's always been in the back of my mind that I'd probably live to see one.

We've had a bunch of scares since then, but it's looking like this will be the one. Maybe people in the 22nd century will talk about the 20-21 corona virus pandemic like we talk about the 18-19 influenza one.

So yea, kinda surreal.
Click to expand...

It should happen anyway, we have to prevent overpopulation. So soon or later we gonna see worse, probably as I said before, these are the roots of WW3. WW3's not gonna be nuclear, not like, countries will fight eachother and we'all gonna die, no. Biological warfare's gonna wipe us out.

I am lucky though, I have weapons/gas mask and other survival tools in my basement, but there are people who don't. I think we all should consider to at least prepare ourselves for the worst. I've said in my post, right.. ''50% of world being isolated''. Well, my man, that's half of this world.
 
It's good that actions are being taken to stop the spread. But the way that people sheeple are hearing this media hype and buying out all the rolls of toilet paper in supermarkets and acting like the Armageddon is on the horizon is fucking retarded. I thought people were smarter than this honestly. To me, that's the worst part of all this. I have felt like people have been waking up and becoming more intelligent with time. But this absurd and moronic overreaction on the part of all the sheeple thinking this is going to turn into bubonic plague part 2 is just fucking depressing honestly.

I mean if the authorities think it's appropriate to close schools for a while or whatever the fuck they're doing to try to contain it, I'm not doubting the experts. But the people doing dumb shit like buying up an entire store's stock of toilet paper and random household supplies are about as smart as a box of rocks. It's potentially serious, yes. However, the fucking hysteria is uncalled for. I mean WTF would people do if there was a real danger to humanity, as in something actually serious like an asteroid headed for the Earth, the possibility of nuclear war breaking out, etc. If people react like this now, there's no way that people would be able to stay remotely rational if shit actually hits the fan.
 
novaveritas said:
It won't hit all at once because people will be infected at different times, however it will hit pretty much all at once if you have isolation, with limited mixing and slow build of multiple reservoirs( Inoculation sources) and then suddenly do complete mixing of these sources with the population when you release the restrictions, that is basic epidemiology. Or to put it another way it is can kicking. incubation period is up to 28 days and often asymptomatic so how many infection cycles are you going to isolate for? one two three ten? how many
Click to expand...

Of course it will hit all at once. Sure it won't happen all on the same day, but it'll happen way way way faster than if we take social isolation actions to slow it down.

And social isolation won't entirely stop the spread. It will continue to spread, just slower.

Exactly how is social isolation going to make things worse?

You say stuff like "however it will hit pretty much all at once if you have isolation, with limited mixing and slow build of multiple reservoirs( Inoculation sources) and then suddenly do complete mixing of these sources with the population when you release the restrictions".

But that's not an explanation. It's just a restatement of your claim. Why? Why will that happen. What are these reservoirs of infected people and how is it worse because of isolation?

It seems like you're just restating your argument but I'm not seeing any clear reason for specifically why you think that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top