Same here.Could be right. We don’t know for sure. I do strongly suspect that I am one of those not counted. But I can’t say for sure.
Upvote
0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Same here.Could be right. We don’t know for sure. I do strongly suspect that I am one of those not counted. But I can’t say for sure.
It's not possible to know that yet. I'd submit that data aligns with both hypotheticals. It's very possible to make premature and emotional assumptions, which I'm afraid will be our approach as a nation.Which is it?
There are others reasons besides those two but we can't get into that here.We live in the third most populous county in the world. Millions of people have already had it and recovered. Everyone seems to forget that the people who wind up hospitalized are a small minority of the total cases. The reasons that millions of people didn't get tested are 1) because tests weren't widely available until ~10 days ago, and 2) because they weren't sick enough to warrant a hospital visit.
30,000 people have died from the flu since October. 2400 people have died from coronavirus.
Tired of people sowing fear. People who will comply have and the people that won’t won’t. Get on with surviving this.Are you gatekeeping illnesses?
For this season we must all Social Distance and wash our hands and sanitize. The longer we "Flatten the Curve" the better the chance of treatments becoming available which would have a huge impact.
It's not "possible", but now pretty much a given, with the spike in detected cases coinciding with the increase in tests. And while the "lower percentage does not change the threat of overloading the hospitals", I think that with social distancing and increasing "herd immunity", the chances of any hospital overload drops significantly. If any overload at all happens, it will likely happen in only a very few places, such as NYC.I think it's very possible more have it undetected. That lower percentage does not change the threat of overloading the hospitals, a possible which we've addressed for about 0.5 business days.
I would feel better if we were actually social distancing consistently, but you gotta make those spring break dollas, so we've centralized all of our transmission into one low-rent vacation destination.It's not "possible", but now pretty much a given, with the spike in detected cases coinciding with the increase in tests. And while the "lower percentage does not change the threat of overloading the hospitals", I think that with social distancing and increasing "herd immunity", the chances of any hospital over load drops significantly.
Based on what?If there any overload at all happens, it will likely happen in only a very few places, such as NYC.
Not necessarily true. Serum is one of the ways treatment is being developed.There isn’t much reason to test the populous from a medical treatment perspective. It’s certainly an excellent way to quarantine asymptomatic individuals to limit spreading. We are way past that scenario, however.
Sure, and that’s great, but it’s not going to help with the situation at hand. Maybe down the road though.Not necessarily true. Serum is one of the ways treatment is being developed.
This link was posted earlier, but provides some hospital capacity projections by state.Based on what?
Based on current data. Granted data will change, but while NYC has seen an explosion in the number of cases--based on population density and other factors--most other places haven't.Based on what?