undefined | Better HN

0 pointslearc836y ago0 comments

You can look at the counts by date. The majority are past the mean time till hospitalization, and the the number in critical condition hasn't increased in days.

>If 42 were critical, that doesn't necessarily mean they were the only ones who needed hospital treatment.

Percent hospitalized isn't the thing to look at. It's percentage of people who need intensive care or a ventilator that matters.

Many people were hospitalized for observation. Some people received IV fluids. How many of those people were saved by IV fluids vs. just being a nice to have is unknown. But that kind of care can be done in mass tent hospitals or even at home.

0 comments

fauigerzigerk6y ago

>You can look at the counts by date.

Are these numbers still updated now that many (or all?) have left the ship? Where can I see those numbers?

>Many people were hospitalized for observation

Yes, but if fewer people had been under close observation in a hospital more might have died. Admitting only precisely those who turn critical is not realistic in my (lay person's) opinion.

I agree with you about the age distribution on the cruise ship though. This is very important to note.

Still, I have to wonder what share of the population can get hospital/ICU treatment at any given time.

I don't know about other places, but here in the UK hospital bed occupancy rates are dangerously high at the best of times. I don't know how many beds/ICUs can be freed up in an emergency. But I doubt it's anywhere near enough if everyone gets sick at the same time.

I hope someone is doing some modelling to find out how aggressively we have to slow down the rate of infection so that hospitals are not overwhelmed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse