Me too. It could of course been a planned C-section for “convenience”, that’s not unheard of (and it’s entirely legit). I just know that lots of women are scheduled for C-sections because they all into the high risk category for one reason or another.
8 Likes
Yeah, that’s mostly not elective in 2020, if you can deliver vaginally, you are expected to do so. Plus, VBACs aren’t universally possible for all women after a c-section.
7 Likes
Would someone please explain why my math is wrong? If we are interested in outcomes, then we do not want to include people with no outcome (yet) in mortality numbers. Mortality should be US CV19 deaths/ (deaths + recovered) which is 11.8%. The number only goes down if you include currently active infections that have no outcome (death or recovered). Numbers from Johns Hopkins. Thanks
Hell, why stop at 1%?
6 Likes
I used to share a house with this guy. You’re… not wrong.
1 Like
We have fewer than a million hospital beds in the US. 924,000 is what a quick google search got me. That’s enough room for .3% of the population. If 1% are sick enough to die… there’s a lot of people who won’t get beds.
3 Likes
Ok, based on how it was laid out, I was reading the 18% as relative to the number of people who died, but that’s still not right. But the 19% of (just) hospitalized patients seems to be a wild undercount. I saw a reference to a study done in China, where 12% of all Covid-19 patients showed “signs” of heart damage.
1 Like
And it’s not that only 1% are sick enough to die - it’s that 1% do die after receiving treatment (sometimes for several months). A lot more require various levels of extreme care to stay alive. If hospitals are full with just a fraction of the people who will eventually die, there’s absolutely no room for people who could be saved. The total death-count not only gets much higher, but even if we don’t get near that point, what this means in practice is anyone who seems at all likely to die won’t get any care to begin with (or will have care withdrawn).
2 Likes
For round numbers: 3MM confirmed testing and 0.135MM dead. Straight multiplication based on those testing numbers to 300MM infections would be 13.5MM dead. Now, our testing isn’t perfect, so multiplying both by 100 is probably gross overestimation, but yes, millions of dead at full infection over too short a time frame.
2 Likes
Preliminary data are preliminary. Did I mention WDKS?
7 Likes
That distinction is lost on everyone including myself as I immediately ran the numbers from Johns Hopkins and 270220/12970605 = 0.043962 or 4.4% not 1%
WDKS? (106.1 “Kiss” FM?)
1 Like
“We Don’t Know Shit.” I say it often enough that I guess i assume folks know it. Sorry.
10 Likes
Ah, ok. Yeah. Though at this point, preliminary data or no, it seems like we have just enough information to know it’s pretty fuckin’ dire.
4 Likes
Adding people with disabilities to your society is a huge impact to your economy. It’s why we want to eradicate polio and measles.
It’s especially costly if you get a lot of working age people who need additional lifelong healthcare, or now unable to work at their full capacity.
I mean it’s also cruel to let people suffer, but in this case it’s also an economic problem.
1 Like
The reason a disease with a 1% mortality rate shuts down the economy is that nobody wants to be part of that 1%. It would be one thing (though brutally heartless) if you could point at three million specific people and say “yeah, we can afford to lose these folks,” but you can’t. It could be you.
Of course, it could also NOT be you, which is the angle from which the covidiots look at it. 99% likely not to be you? You’re good to mingle.
4 Likes
That’s an article about an article that itself is full of of factual errors.
If anyone can be bothered here’s a (pretty lengthy) take by a Swedish journalist:
emanuelkarlsten.se/multiple-errors-in-the-new-york-times-article-about-swedens-corona-strategy/
We never lifted any lock-down, we’ve been doing the same lockdown since day one (I’m from Stockholm). I think because it is not as strict as in other countries, and our chief epidemiologist can come off as arrogant, a lot of people feel provoked. It’s definitely not the horror story some channels make it out to be.
I’m not going to argue with the economy being damaged regardless of strategy, but I think it’s way too early to see the effects of that anyway…
You could argue we should have enforced a strict lock-down like in Norway and Finland (I get it, the numbers are there, we fared much worse), but if you look at a country like Belgium those kinds of measures didn’t help them anyway. I have my fair share of complaints about the Swedish strategy, but I’m glad we’re not putting all our hope in a miraculously safe and effective vaccine being available in never-before-seen record time. 
It’s far from being a perfect way to tackle Covid, but it’s probably the most sustainable.
2 Likes
basically the problem is the “recovered” numbers are bullshit
2 Likes
6 Likes
So if you made the necropolis very thin and long how much wall shaped necropolis would there be? Asking for a deranged orange monster.
