You're free to bring them up.
Ok, so nothing negative has happened to you. Or your family. What about kids who go to school to get food or to get out of a domestically abusive or drug ridden home? These people are already in poverty more than likely and now just have a larger burden to carry. But that seems to be a fair tradeoff to save someone 65 with a preexisting condition?
I already have in other threads when you carried on about the kansas flu and no wet markets in New York. You missed it though because your here to get internet medals for post count.
10,000,000 is an economic formula. See the NPR link and discussion. I work in insurance and deal with mortality and risk all the time. Behind each death reported as a loss, there are people.
The big question:
we have 300,000 spare hospital beds in teh US for 330,000,000 people.
That means if more than 0.09% of the population suddenly requires hospitalization... they are not getting it. That doesn't even account for ICU/ventilators.
If you need medical attention and you don't get it, for the flu or COVID, your mortality rate skyrockets.
COVID has greater rates of hospitalization than the flu by about a factor of five to what I have seen. (CDC website data on flu for past few years, versus what I culled from a couple of studies posted here)
I think it was about 5% hospitalization rate.
300,000/.05 = 6,000,000
6,000,000 people get sick simultaneously at that hospitalization rate, and you have filled every single open hospital bed in the country.
We are at 1.4M confirmed cases now. with an r0 hovering a bit under 1, with lockdowns and stay at home orders. (based on website CC posted the other day)
Doesn't take much to tick that up.
that is the risk. Overwhelm the health care system, and you have a LOT of excess deaths.
Not the argument I am making. Sorry. Had plenty of negative things happen.
There's your reasons.
Chicken . I accept your surrender.
But the Healthcare was never overwhelmed. In fact they were so underwhelmed, even after the models indicated that with mitigation they would be overwhelmed, every state had to furlough hospital workers.
Even in muh sweeden where lockdowns didn't occur the hospitals were not overwhelmed.
So again, I understand what you are worried about, I just don't understand how you can still believe that will happen, after the data proved the models exaggerated.
Chicken . I accept your surrender.Two peas in a pod, both looking for the w.agreement is personal defeat for thildren
https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals
924000 total beds
64% occupancy rate for most recent data. Probably a bit higher in 2020 given recent trends.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2016/089.pdf
Call it 66.7% for a nice fraction.
.333*924000= 307,692
307,692 beds for 330,000,000 million people. Just to show my work.
There's always suicide.
Number matter suddenly.
Why not just say "as few deaths as possible"?
I know you like wowing people with your ciphering, Jethro, but no one really needs it.
Now they must be hidden
He already did.
Nope, you're always terrified of the L.
No sherlock.He already did.
Generalities when asked for specifics of a goal, but numbers when making non-falsifiable predictions.
You got destroyed ITT. It's your daily dose of humility. You deserved it.Nope, you're always terrified of the L.
I guess the entire American population is going to simultaneously get sick and overwhelm the system?
Nah, that was your false premise. We've been over this.
It's a bit ironic since they also say many Americans cannot afford to go to the hospital so they won't.I guess the entire American population is going to simultaneously get sick and overwhelm the system?
That's when you dipped.
That's when RG said zero was the target and you said having zero as a target is a false premise.
That's when I asked for an actual target.
That's when you punted and dipped
It's too ez here
RG never considers reality in his fervor to show his ciphering.
Who is going to drive from NY to Texas to use that one extra hospital bed?
Are people going to uniformly get ill in all states (your numbers say they will, since you like aggregates)?
Why not focus on the areas that actually have problems, like you know... democrat run states mostly.
Why can Bezos offer to spend billions there yet NY can't build hospitals?
Sorry. I disagree. Zero deaths is a theoretical goal but that doesn't mean that any death means complete failure.
So what death rate isn't a complete failure?
Sorry. I disagree. Zero deaths is a theoretical goal but that doesn't mean that any death means complete failure.
Is a "theoretical goal" pointless since it cannot be achieved? Don't you mean "ethical statement goal" since you're really not concerned about 1 death?
DMC in full whataboutorando mode.
He's about to declare victory again.
Again, you're demanding I say what polcymakers have decided or maybe don't even consider.
Is that a W for you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
