30,000-40,000 ventilators urgently needed for New York

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Under 200 total deaths in the last three months.

It is obvious you want old people to die!!!!

It got into an assisted living center who had 13 deaths and increased our number to barely over 200 now. Those 13 deaths in one center were about 20% of our county's total...

But single moms can't cut hair or do nails to provide for their families even though they have a 99.99% chance of survival. They have to beg at the government 's teat or take on more debt from bankers to make two months of backrent.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Still trying to figure out how China gains something by increasing the number of cases they have helped spread to the world...

They are relying on shills, wittingly or otherwise, to underplay the threat of the virus as they are no doubt terrified at the consequences for their economy.

Not sure whether you are shilling for China wittingly or unwittingly. Only you know that.

a reply to: UKTruth

Again:
Yeah, China is really benefiting from a higher worldwide prevelance of the virus they tried to cover up. Giant numbers of asymptomatics making it difficult to contain the spread are China's ace in the hole against criticism...

They're playing 12 dimensional chess like you.


Find a study without large numbers of asymptomatics yet? One? Surely some non-shill epidemiologists must be out there...

originally posted by: Helious

What we are seeing is very, very bad science regarding this virus. The numbers, the data don't lie. People do.

This right here.

I hope everyone remembers this when we have global warming threads. I love science. Scientists, on the other hand, are just people, and they have biases and agendas.

We can't even trust them to get this right. How can we trust them about something that they always say is 20, 50 or 100 years away?

originally posted by: UKTruth
the LA study was just 1,000 people.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just asking:

When the big news agencies do national polls, they often poll around 1,000 people and somehow that is widely considered large enough to be a representative sample for the nation.

So why would 1,000 people be too small of a sample to represent one county?

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo met with President Trump in the white house yesterday.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) says that early responses to the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine "anecdotally" suggest its use in the coronavirus fight has been "effective."

twitter.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo met with President Trump in the white house yesterday.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) says that early responses to the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine "anecdotally" suggest its use in the coronavirus fight has been "effective."

twitter.com...

The Democrats and the media (the other Democrats) will be pissed. They don't want any treatment to be effective.

No one here listens. it's really easy to say things (so far) haven't been as bad as projected. When the States were scrambling for equipment it was in the early stages of the pandemic. Models --- assuming the virus was allowed to run free (as many on ATS think is a good idea) --- predicted huge numbers of hospitalizations. Their needs were based on those projections. There was no other information and no, the models weren't wrong. Again, they were based upon little to no interdiction efforts. There was no way to predict how effective social measures would be or how cooperative people would be. Had it run its course, hospitals and the healthcare system would have been overrun. As the pandemic progressed and data was available to measure the impact of quarantine/social-distancing, models were updated with that data. But did you want the State's to just assume things would be OK when no one knew? You can't suddenly scramble for ventilators when you have 50 people in your ICU and 10 vents. People needing a vent can't be asked to wait a few days. Do you plan a dinner party for 20 but only prepare food for 10 because you expect half not to show?

And don't kid yourselves, the pandemic is slowing (most states showing around 4% increase in new cases day-over-day) but it hasn't yet started to decline. Open stuff up and provide new hosts and you'll see it explode again.

And hydroxychloroquine has not proved to be effective. While Remdesivir has. But everyone seems obsessed with the former. Google peach pits treatment for cancer. It was a real 'doctor promoted' thing some time back.


source Fox News

a reply to: jtma508

The IHME projections included FULL mitigation. Suggesting they didn't isn't true. If peak usage was 5603 ventilators, and the model suggests that with full mitigation we need at least 30,000, what does that tell you about the projections?

a reply to: carewemust

almost 2 weeks ago when I mentioned it here it was immediately removed and was criticised by some members, and here we are, its conformed from so many places that it does work with zinc

originally posted by: RadioRobert

It got into an assisted living center who had 13 deaths and increased our number to barely over 200 now. Those 13 deaths in one center were about 20% of our county's total...

But single moms can't cut hair or do nails to provide for their families even though they have a 99.99% chance of survival. They have to beg at the government 's teat or take on more debt from bankers to make two months of backrent.

To add to this, there is a reason why these people are in assisted living homes as manyds are basically on their deathbed as to the reason why they are here. The care facility in Washington were we had a bunch of deaths also had 2 times the number of deaths due to other things than COVID-19. What this means is a lot of people die there all the time, and why the people are mainly there in the first place.

I'm not trying to minimize the loss other than to say we can't apply what happen there to the whole country.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Being 85 years old or older carries a >14% chance of mortality within the year in the US. Without factoring the 'Rona. They are just extremely vulnerable. This is obviously devastating to already ill and aged people. But even for those groups it isn't an automatic death sentence.

County-wide, more than 350 long-term care residents tested positive for the virus, nearly all of them hospitalized, and 47 residents have died.
...
“What we’ve seen with the Kirkland, Washington center, [we] saw death rates in the 30%-40%, even the [World Health Organization] reports a 21% death rate with those over 80 years old," Voepel explained.

As of Tuesday, the COVID-19 death rate at long-term facilities in Maricopa County is at 13%.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: jtma508

The IHME projections included FULL mitigation. Suggesting they didn't isn't true. If peak usage was 5603 ventilators, and the model suggests that with full mitigation we need at least 30,000, what does that tell you about the projections?

Right. The IHME model is a 'best case scenario' model. It is significantly lower than the models available at the outbreak which had to assume little mitigation. When you're staring down the barrel of an unknown pandemic you can't base your needs assessments on a 'full mitigation' model. You have to assume worst case until there is data to measure what level of mitigation you have attained. The Columbia 20% model suggests a death rate 3.5 x higher than the IHME model. And you don't do your planning based on deaths but on hospitalizations which is (of course) much higher. Even using the very low Columbia 20% model 3.5 x 5603 = 19,610 vents based on death data. Much higher for hospitalizations. So no, in the early stages the numbers were solid.

originally posted by: jtma508

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: jtma508

The IHME projections included FULL mitigation. Suggesting they didn't isn't true. If peak usage was 5603 ventilators, and the model suggests that with full mitigation we need at least 30,000, what does that tell you about the projections?

Right. The IHME model is a 'best case scenario' model. It is significantly lower than the models available at the outbreak which had to assume little mitigation. When you're staring down the barrel of an unknown pandemic you can't base your needs assessments on a 'full mitigation' model. You have to assume worst case until there is data to measure what level of mitigation you have attained. The Columbia 20% model suggests a death rate 3.5 x higher than the IHME model. And you don't do your planning based on deaths but on hospitalizations which is (of course) much higher. Even using the very low Columbia 20% model 3.5 x 5603 = 19,610 vents based on death data. Much higher for hospitalizations. So no, in the early stages the numbers were solid.

Seems sensible to me.
I guess there will be always be those who want to wing it regardless of the risk.
We can be thankful they were nowhere the position to make any determination on the course of action.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth
the LA study was just 1,000 people.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just asking:

When the big news agencies do national polls, they often poll around 1,000 people and somehow that is widely considered large enough to be a representative sample for the nation.

So why would 1,000 people be too small of a sample to represent one county?

Because the 1,000 self selected.
At that volume, bias in the sampling will have an enormous impact in the validity of the result.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: UKTruth

Again:
Yeah, China is really benefiting from a higher worldwide prevelance of the virus they tried to cover up. Giant numbers of asymptomatics making it difficult to contain the spread are China's ace in the hole against criticism...

They're playing 12 dimensional chess like you.


Find a study without large numbers of asymptomatics yet? One? Surely some non-shill epidemiologists must be out there...

Again:
China is desperate to underplay the severity of the virus. If the death rate can by spun by spurious analysis pushed by their willing and unwitting shills, they will be delighted.

There will be no study yet that seriously aims to calculate the wider spread beyond testing. The ones that exist are just Chinese propganda. Without truly random sampling the exercise is pointless.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth
the LA study was just 1,000 people.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just asking:

When the big news agencies do national polls, they often poll around 1,000 people and somehow that is widely considered large enough to be a representative sample for the nation.

So why would 1,000 people be too small of a sample to represent one county?

Because the 1,000 self selected.
At that volume, bias in the sampling will have an enormous impact in the validity of the result.

Is that another way of saying they volunteered?

Isn't that how all polling is done? They call around and invariably get people that refuse to participate. They keep calling until they get the desired number.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth
the LA study was just 1,000 people.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just asking:

When the big news agencies do national polls, they often poll around 1,000 people and somehow that is widely considered large enough to be a representative sample for the nation.

So why would 1,000 people be too small of a sample to represent one county?

Because the 1,000 self selected.
At that volume, bias in the sampling will have an enormous impact in the validity of the result.

Is that another way of saying they volunteered?

Isn't that how all polling is done? They call around and invariably get people that refuse to participate. They keep calling until they get the desired number.

In political polling - at least the honest ones - a cross section of political ideologies are sampled for the final report.
The likelihood of responding matters less because quotas can be reached for each ideology.

With testing for the virus there can be no such sampling. The people who come forward are obviously more likely to be people who have some symptoms, especially against a backdrop of limited testing and not being able to get tested without more serious symptoms.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth
the LA study was just 1,000 people.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just asking:

When the big news agencies do national polls, they often poll around 1,000 people and somehow that is widely considered large enough to be a representative sample for the nation.

So why would 1,000 people be too small of a sample to represent one county?

Because the 1,000 self selected.
At that volume, bias in the sampling will have an enormous impact in the validity of the result.

Is that another way of saying they volunteered?

Isn't that how all polling is done? They call around and invariably get people that refuse to participate. They keep calling until they get the desired number.

In political polling - at least the honest ones - a cross section of political ideologies are sampled for the final report.
The likelihood of responding matters less because quotas can be reached for each ideology.

With testing for the virus there can be no such sampling. The people who come forward are obviously more likely to be people who have some symptoms, especially against a backdrop of limited testing and not being able to get tested without more serious symptoms.

You realize that any bias that gives the study would have the effect of there actually being more asymptomatic cases than the study found, then? And the death rate would be correspondingly even lower.

originally posted by: RadioRobert


As of Tuesday, the COVID-19 death rate at long-term facilities in Maricopa County is at 13%.

And once again we do not have a good denominator, so they only are comparing deaths to known tested positives. I would put that percentage down to lower than half or more from 14%.