• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
BB73 said:
One obvious problem with having Vegas as an early area to open up is that people travel to and from there from all over the country, so it's not just Vegas that's susceptible to a bounce in cases. Vegas and Disney World are about the last places that should open.

I didn't listen to the above interview yet.
Click to expand...

3.5 million people visited Las Vegas in January. Another 3.1 million people visited in February. I WISH they would do antibody testing here.
 
Upvote 0
sparcboxbuck said:
Oh, there’s no question that Vegas is bad news bears here. Recall that CES was in January and half of China was in town (with me) for a week of very little social distancing.
Click to expand...

Nevada cases 4,081; new cases 0; deaths 172; new deaths 0; active cases 2,068; cases per million 1,396; deaths per million 59; total tests 41,534; tests per million 14,210.

If the Stanford and USC tests are true, 25% of Vegas has already had it, and the mortality rate is .086%.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
This is the first I've seen of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that there is a point system being used on a larger scale. I'm saying that it's not really different than what is already being discussed at a higher level. Some people are going to live, some people are going to die and different courses of action will result in different people dying. Everyone is talking numbers -- how many more will die if we open things up? How many more will die if we don't? Let's look at the numbers and make the best decision we can to minimize the deaths suffering. They use tools to help guide those decision and that's what this guideline is -- a quantitative tool to use to determine how to allocate resources when resources are scarce.

It's just more unpleasant to look at it on an individualistic level when they are saying "Tony, you are 80 and have COPD, while Angela over there is 12 and otherwise healthy. Sorry, dude, she gets the last ventilator." Versus "60,000 more senior citizens with various comorbidities are going to die from COVID if we open things up but 60,000 mostly healthy working people are going to die from various ailments related to unemployment/poverty/stress if we don't". It's the same decision, but on an individual level.

Precisely why triage shouldn't be decided by some arbitrary numerical metric.
Click to expand...

Counterpoint:
1. It's not arbitrary. It's developed by medical professionals to help other medical professionals make a decision when there are only wrong answers.
2. In a situation where there is one ventilator available and 3 patients equally in need, it is unfair to make the doctor make the decision unilaterally. They are being forced to make a one-sided decision on who lives and who dies. This takes the onus off of the doctor and places the responsibility for the decision on a collective conscience. That is not to say that they cannot make a decision using their medical expertise, but that in the hopefully rare situation where they are forced to make that choice between 2+ people all equally in need, they can fallback on the guidelines provided.

And of course this applies only in a hypothetical worst case scenario where resources are drawn so thin that doctors have to be making these decisions. Hopefully in never gets to that point.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top