AntonStratiev
Joined 6 years ago
Karma
-18
Submissions
27
Member since
Mar 19
Recent submissions
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1240689935557865472
Details a study on a different Coronavirus in 1990. There is definitely some immunity, but its complicated.
Comment · 6 years ago
We can take the age profile of Venezuela[1] and the estimated hospital rates and general virus profile from the Imperial College report[2].
Assume 80% infection, and assuming that 100% of people who would have needed hospitalization die.
This is 720,000 people, or 2.5% of the population. However, if we just take the working-age population (65 and lower), and assume 50% survival rate instead of 0%, the deaths are just 0.79% of the total population.
So decimation is absolutely inaccurate and the higher-up poster is correct. Developing countries like Venezuela cannot afford to and should not shutdown their economies or societies.
[1] https://www.populationpyramid.net/venezuela-bolivarian-repub...
[2] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
Comment · 6 years ago
Based on data from China, 97% of the people who need ventilators will die anyway:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
The Ventilator just keeps them alive for a few days, but there are other bodily systems failing and causing death.
Comment · 6 years ago
The people who are going to die are already in very poor health. The median age of deaths in Italy is 80 from yesterday's data. [1]
Previously it has been communicated that 99% of deaths are to people with existing health problems.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-...
There are two people in my life I expect to die of the virus: my sister who is in her late 20s, with a lifetime history of Anorexia/Bulimia, who is currently in stage 5 kidney failure. Secondly my Aunt, a lifetime smoker, who currently has terminal lung cancer.
Both of these people, speaking personally, are going to die sometime this year. Will their deaths be accounted against the Coronavirus death toll or to their underlying conditions?
Is there any point to shutting down everything for 18+ months so that they can live another few months, doing so under lockdown conditions and general panic, with nobody able to visit them? And at the end of it all, many of the people who care for them will be unemployed.
Comment · 6 years ago
We should be building palliative care centres across the country, not pop-up hospitals.
Pay everyone who contracts Coronavirus in the next 4 months and is refused ICU care, $100,000. If they die, the amount is divided between their surviving immediate family members or previously registered carer.
The current panic seems to be driven by the guilt of not being able to treat everyone. This payment should alleviate that guilt and allow us to continue with life.
Comment · 6 years ago
There is no need to imagine, we have the forecasts from the Imperial College report:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
There are 40 million 40-somethings in the USA, you're proposing that 100% of them will have lung damage.
Let's imagine that 80% of the population is infected, that 80% of cases are symptomatic, and that 80% of the 4.90% of hospitalised cases (this 4.90 is direct from the report) get damaged lungs. This is one million 40-somethings, not the entire population.
1 million sounds like a lot, but its only 2.5% of the population at that age range, and assume worst-case.
You know what causes reduced lung functionality in adults? Asthma, driven by air pollution from vehicles and coal power plants. 7.7% of adults have Asthma. Where is the war-scale drive to eliminate fossil-fueled vehicles and power generation?
Comment · 6 years ago
I meant to say 'fatal cases' and have corrected the text. Thanks for pointing it out.
Comment · 6 years ago
Its simpler than that, if we're brutally honest and scientific: the developed world had accumulated, through extensive use of modern medicine and redistributive welfare schemes, a large population of people who were kept alive solely by modern medicine and the support (forced or otherwise) of their fellow citizens.
With the appearance of a new type of virus, mostly harmless to the majority of the population, but lethal to those at the medical fringes (eg. 99% of fatal cases in Italy have existing health problems, average age 79), we overreacted and in the process destroyed our economy and society, unwilling to face our own mortality.
Comment · 6 years ago
Focusing on positive or negative is the wrong focus, we need to test for immunity. Those who are immune can contract the virus again in a year, but will do so without symptoms, according to older studies for similar viruses.
And most importantly, those with immunity can go on to lead a normal life and participate in the economy.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Plus you need nurses and doctors to intubate the patient and setup and monitor the actual ventilator. The machine itself is a small part of the equation.
I think the focus on ventilators is somewhat misleading. If you need mechanical ventilation, you're a goner anyway, and your bed and healthcare staff could be better used on someone else. The 'lack' of a machine is just a very visible component.