Sloppy wording. After âpeak deathsâ people wonât start coming back to life. I think they mean the rate of deaths per day will peak. Before that, the rate of increase in deaths per day would have to go negative, which would be a welcome sign.
It would be nice to know the actual number of current infections, but right now, thatâs a hidden variable.
eta: Three weeks seems optimistic. Hopefully that might be the peak for New York and other current hot spots, but other states will get their turn if social-distancing doesnât work.
Guillotine
Would that apply when the discussion starts to include people or attributes considered undesirable rather than survivability? Because I think that was a big part of the flagging action, recently, in this thread.
I assume thatâs the plan, though without centralized reading of the results I donât know how you get reliable data.
There are similar rapid tests (from different manufacturers, maybe with different technologies) being rolled out in several countries soon, including the US, but Iâve not heard of anyone else planning to just mail them out to households.
These discussions arenât theoretical anymore. The avalanche has already started. Itâs too late for the pebbles to vote.
If politicians start deciding who lives and who dies, it is too late. It is also too late if these decisions are made ad-hoc, bedside. These discussions need to happen now with qualified folks who can make these touch decisions before itâs too late.
News out of Italy already had indications hospitals were basically turning away the old and infirm in places. If you donât define what âinfirmâ means in those situations, you better believe some hospital administrator somewhere is going to put âmentally illâ or other arbitrary conditions on this stuff.
If the trajectory goes the way the medical professionals claim, instead of how a large part of the US political machine claims, and these guidelines arenât hammered out, IMHO, we are going to see some very, very atrocious behaviour, vs yet more heroic defiance and stepping up by bedside staff - who, as I said, should not have to be put in that position.
I think we can throw QALY right out on its face. As has been pointed out in the literature:
, using QALYs for assigning treatment is biased and unethical. For an extreme example, using QALY, a young Stephen Hawking would be near the bottom of the QALY priority score, whereas a young Donald Trump would be near the top, despite obvious reverse value to society.
The state of Alabama already has. And when some of us called that out for what it was, another poster decided to go for the âgotchaâ.
It all depends on how they use the results. Knowing who has the antibodies isnât enough. They need to keep the infectious away from the uninfected long enough for the virus to die out.
If they just say âEveryone with antibodies, outside and back to work. The rest of you stay inside or take your chances.â itâll be a shitshow.
Bone spurs, bad prognosis. Next?
BTW, is it me or has Fauci moved on from face-palming when Trump speaks at the Coronavirus updates to #6 on the Pain Scale:
OK, maybe a 7.
While most states are instituting increasingly strict measures in an attempt to limit the spread of the virus, Mississippi seems bound and determined to hold onto its "50th in the US: rankingsâŚ
That man is clearly a Muppet
Heâs Dr. Bunsen Honeydewâs anti-science twin.
So whose hand is up his ass?
