Coronavirus math

Quote: DeMango

Stanford doctors ... assumptions. Hopefully this works

Many thanx. It worked. The Stanford doctors suggest a different metric for tabulating the fatality rate, basing the denominator on more-common "number of infections," rather than on "idenified cases" (one per fatality). The authors suggest orders of magnitude difference using their methodology.

The story ends with a very BIG if (but my emphasis):

Quote:

If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then measured [sic] focused on older populations and hospitals are sensible, A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health.

But, will the pandemic be of "limited scale"? (Not to mention, America has never had a universal quarantine, but this idea was nowhere mentioned elsewhere in the article.) Personally, I think the authors are "sneezing into the wind." Reliable "infection rate" data for the general population is too often lacking. I hope the authors are correct. Gamblers are optimists, even against high odds.

In NY why didn't they buy more ventilators back in 2015 when they had the chance? Why did they instead waste money on solar panels instead of preparing for a future pandemic? Who's job is it in the hospitals to buy supplies and to plan ahead?

Right now many of the hospitals are like adult children that don't know how to budget their money. They come up short on what they really need because they didn't plan ahead, and then scream at mom and dad while they come to the rescue and bail them out.

Quote: Keyser

In NY why didn't they buy more ventilators back in 2015 when they had the chance?

Michigan wants help. They should get it regardless of politics

Does anyone REALLY believe that any state is being denied help?

Not a chance.

Quote: Keyser

In NY why didn't they buy more ventilators back in 2015 when they had the chance? Why did they instead waste money on solar panels instead of preparing for a future pandemic? Who's job is it in the hospitals to buy supplies and to plan ahead?

Right now many of the hospitals are like adult children that don't know how to budget their money. They come up short on what they really need because they didn't plan ahead, and then scream at mom and dad while they come to the rescue and bail them out.

This is a valid point. Not for the hospitals, but for the State. A hospital has a budget, and plans to buy machines and supplies it could REASONABLY expect to use. Had my hospital bought 20 extra ventilators in 2015 that would be $1,000,000. You must be aware that they face a budget crisis every year, always looking for where they can save $1. Would you have been happy to have a $50 surcharge on your health insurance bill for "ventilator stockpile"? What about the $10 surcharge for N-95 mask stockpile? What if there is a different disease that causes massive kidney failure? Should all hospitals now be required to stockpile dialysis machines? You get my point.

If you feel the State should have had a stockpile of ventilators, they would feel the same budgetary constraints. The 30,000 that Cuomo now wants is a BILLION dollars. Not including storage costs. And maintenance costs, etc.... I can only laugh at the thought after struggling to get a balanced budget in 2015 if Cuomo would have told the legislators.... ummmm.... please come up with another BILLION dollars in cuts so I can buy 30,000 ventilators!

Summary.... each hospital addresses its own reasonable expected needs. Preparing for something like this is up to the government.

Quote: billryan

As the real testing for the vaccine won't start until September, I'm afraid you might be a bit optimistic.
I realize people want go grasp at miracle solutions, but this fantasy that it is going to go away in two or three weeks is going to get a lot of people killed.

Better optimistic then the naysayers that predict 3 million dead in this country. Folks are gonna die, a lot of them, no matter what. So will we economically destroy this country? Seems to be your wish, in all your posts.

Typically if your area has 500 cases, there's already 10 deaths. If there's 5,000 cases, there's already 100 deaths. If there's 50,000 cases, there's already 1,000 deaths. These numbers may change if the curve flattens or changes the other way.

If your county is lagging by 400 deaths, they may happen today and/or tomorrow.

Quote: DeMango

Better optimistic then the naysayers that predict 3 million dead in this country. Folks are gonna die, a lot of them, no matter what. So will we economically destroy this country? Seems to be your wish, in all your posts.

I want to save lives. Seems like that should be the only priority. Obviously you don't put as much value on that as others do.
I hope my wish comes true. Don't you?

Quote: billryan

I want to save lives. Seems like that should be the only priority. Obviously you don't put as much value on that as others do.
I hope my wish comes true. Don't you?

Pandemic or not, there will always be situations that are balancing act between saving human life and keeping the economy going.

Almost 40,000 people die each year in the US by motor vehicle accident. Yet we don’t ban driving because our economy depends on it.

I am not saying that we shouldn’t be in quarantine, trying to flatten the curve, etc. But the ugly truth is that at some point we need to cut the loss of life in favor of economics. It’s not an easy pill to swallow, but we do it all the time with many other things.

Quote: gamerfreak

Almost 40,000 people die each year in the US by motor vehicle accident. Yet we don’t ban driving because our economy depends on it.
.

And untold thousands lives are ruined as well from MVAs. Forget about banning driving. EASY to save 10,000+ lives if we lowered the speed limit on highways to 50mph (and enforced it). We have decided that avoiding the inconvenience of driving that slow is worth more than those 10,000 lives. All the blather about 'can't place the value on a human life is just that, blather.