It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Prime Minister Theresa May insisted the government was still doing enough to support the health service, but blamed flu for the pressures on hospitals.
originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: RadioRobert
Hi you first quote has
Prime Minister Theresa May insisted the government was still doing enough to support the health service, but blamed flu for the pressures on hospitals.
but Boris Johnson became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 24 July 2019
So that would be a whole year earlier and then the mutations could have developed into the versions we have today.
But still have trouble see a Bat with SARS being eating raw by a HIV positive person randomly connecting a viruses into SARS-Conv-HIV in Wuhan. What a coincident.
The Oxford group came out since then addressing prevalence in the general population and the effect it has on rate of growth, so probably not
...
What we can do now is gather and assess data from the US experience, and determine if a pivot to a more risk-based concentration of protections can be carried out. The goal is better protection, not less, for those most in need. To me, the prospect looks promising.
As for the economy- it simply can't be unbundled from public health; this is what the vitally important “social determinants of health” is all about. It is a major reason, even the major reason, why some people are healthy and others are not. As my colleagues focusing their entire careers on this matter have said: your zip code may say much more about your prospects for health than your genetic code.
...
We need to be thinking about more than one way to save lives, because there is more than one way to ruin and lose them. Any of them is bad, preventing any is good. Our objective must always be to use data to inform policy aimed at total harm minimization.
Our overall approach rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitalisable illness. This proportion is itself only a fraction of the risk groups already well described in the literature[1–4],including the elderly and those carrying critical comorbidities(e.g.asthma).
Not many seem to be recommending that.
Notable: He doesn't recommend ending shelter -in-place behaviour until a systemic shift can be made toward a coherent new policy.
originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: muzzleflash
Find that honey! Make a mint!
originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: infolurker
I dont know about in the US.. But in early December/late November (not quite sure), I became aware of something "afoot" when trying to get a respirator for general use.
Clearly anecdotal, but I thought it was wierd enough that I looked into it. The things floating around at the time were "rumor," at best, but Ive kept my eye on it since.
13% of known cases require hospitalization. This is a fact, not a model, not a guess. Do you think that number will change significantly over the next weeks? How do unknown cases change this?
So NY is obviously oversampling cases in need of hospitalization.
originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: AutomateThis1
My biggest concern for the Chinese people are the possible effects of those who might have passed away.. still being where they passed.
I dont know, maybe not a problem. They are taking it seriously enough that they are spraying the streets constantly. But they have so many people and so many reasons not to trust authorities..
Thats not even necessarily in regards to covid, either.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert
And you think that means that the 13% rate in New York will change? You think that means that the measures that states are taking are unreasonable?
13% of known cases require hospitalization. This is a fact, not a model, not a guess. Do you think that number will change significantly over time? How do unknown cases change this?
So NY is obviously oversampling cases in need of hospitalization.
Sick people are tested. Some are positive and some are not. Of those who are positive 13% require hospitalization. Do you think the number of sick people is going to decline? Do you think, that as the number of cases (not the amount of testing) rises, the number of those requiring hospitalization would not follow suit?
Are you really asking how a narrow, targeted sampling around those seriously ill can result in higher apparent rates than extensive sampling?
And you think that means that the 13% rate in New York will change?
13% of known cases require hospitalization. This is a fact, not a model, not a guess. Do you think that number will change significantly over time?