Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally86
|
Super interesting, I haven't seen that data yet. I think we sort of knew that covid would be the final nail in the coffin for people that are on death's door, but I would have expected there to be a larger number of deaths in that age group though. If anything that sort of cements what I'm saying regarding nuance.
Covid can simultaneously be dangerous to a community and not very dangerous to a high percentage of individuals. It's dangerous due to the fact that it spreads so easily and causes respiratory distress to a high enough percentage of individuals to overwhelm the medical system.
To illustrate this in another way, where I live there's a population of approximately 75,000 with two local hospitals with a bed count of approx 750 between the two of them. There's approx 40 to 50 ICU between both.
I've seen data suggesting that anywhere between 5-10% of people infected with covid 19 need medical attention (ranging from steroids & antibiotics on the less serious side to intubation on the more serious side). Let's assume 35000 people (50%) become positive within a small window of time, that would mean anywhere from 1750 to 3500 people will require medical attention. There are only 750 beds. 1-2% will require intensive care, or 350 to 700 people while there are 40-50 ICU beds. This is overwhelming and then you also have to realize people go to the hospital for things that are unrelated to COVID-19 (fractures, COPD exacerbation, cardiac arrest etc). This means numerous people will receive insufficient care.
This has been simplified but I think the point gets across.
Also the study was likely retracted because people are idiots and will use it as data to push their agenda. The same thing happened when the CDC published data and people arrived at the conclusion that only 6% of people died from covid which is not what the data said at all.