General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsU.S. doesn't have enough ICU beds or ventilators to deal with even a moderate coronavirus outbreak
While the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have refrained from calling the new coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, CNN started referring to it as such on Monday. And although that should not "cause panic," it does mean the U.S. needs to shore up its medical resources before things get worse, CNN's Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta explained in a Monday article.
So far around the world we've seen 100,000 cases and 3,000 deaths from COVID-19, and in Gupta's opinion, that fits the CDC's definition of pandemic as "an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people." And while the government isn't using that word yet, it is admitting that coronavirus spread is a question of not if, but when.
Looking at how COVID-19 affected China can provide a preview of what it'll look like in the U.S. In China, "around 80 percent of those infected with the coronavirus had symptoms of a bad cold and are expected to recover. Another 14 percent became severely ill, and 5 percent became critically ill," Gupta writes. So according to estimates from the Department of Health and Human Services, that translates to about 200,000 people needing intensive care in the case of a moderate outbreak. That could be a big problem, seeing as the U.S. has less than 100,000 ICU beds.
An estimated 64,000 people will also need ventilators in a moderate outbreak, CNN reports, but the U.S. only has about 62,000 of those machines ready to go. It has another 8,900 in its national stockpile, but "given that this is flu season, many of those are already in use," Gupta writes. Read more about the preparedness problem at CNN.
https://news.yahoo.com/u-doesnt-enough-icu-beds-135900967.html
Phoenix61
(17,003 posts)they say its not as bad as the flu. Ive pretty much decided that most people dont understand mathematics enough to understand the data on this disease.
Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)I just had that conversation at work today.
I suggested that we needed to be proactive yesterday, not 3 days from now when they find the right frames for the signs listing ways to help flatten the curve.
The response was:
They (our students) are grown people, we can't make them wash their hands
We don't want to panic them. Can't we just say to prevent transmission of germs?
We can't suggest they not go to Italy and Egypt for spring break. (My response: No, but we can insist they be quarantined for 2 weeks on their return.)
And, my favorite, it's not as deadly as the flu. When I informed them it appears to be between 15 and 30 times as deadly as the flu, they responded - only for the elderly or those with underlying conditions. To which I responded - only if you consider 10 elderly (10 is the age at which the current fatality rate for COVID 19 exceeds that of the flu)
I'm too tired for this - but since I have an at risk daughter, not to mention both my spouse and I are over 60 - I guess it doesn't matter that I'm too tired.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)From the New England Journal of Medicine:
This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
Facts are inconvenient, I know.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)and not a peer-reviewed article. Further, it was written eons ago, back in February, before they had more reliable data from Italy. The opinion is based on speculation, "If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%."
That's not fact, nor do the authors offer any speculation for how many asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic individuals they are specualting exist in order to assume that there are enough to drop the suggested death rate.
The mortality rate estimated by the WHO on March 3 is 3.4%, up from a February estimate of 2%.
The current numbers are 15-30 times more deadly, depending on what dataset is used, depending on what denominator is used (current cases v. cases 2 weeks ago, for example). That's why I gave a range - and both ends of the range are based on actual data and are consistent with the WHO estimate.
We will know more a year from now. Until then, I'm going with observed fatality rates, and estimates by WHO, an entity that is not subject to dismissal merely because a statement they make might anger Trump. It has, unfortunately, been clear in the past few days that Dr. Fauci is no longer free to speak his mind. I don't envy the dance he has to do - but the necessity of that dance means that, sadly, I cannot take everything he says (or refrains from saying) at face value.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/03/anthony-fauci-trump-coronavirus-crisis-118961
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)was around .33, not the .87 he was trying to hand me. His supervisor overheard the conversation and was quite patient with the employee, so I was glad for that. I've had to help clerks, especially young ones, count change at the checkout counter. There is no way "the average American" understands the data on this disease. Can't say I do completely, but I understand what "mortality rate" means!
Massacure
(7,521 posts)The United States has roughly 20 ICU beds per 100,000 people. That is behind Germany (25), Belgium (23), and Croatia (20), though more than Canada (15), France (10), and the Netherlands (9).
https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/cc11140