Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

How many of you know the (non-vaccinated) Covid hospitalization rate without googling it?

2»

Replies

  • cyfehr76cyfehr76 Member, Premium Posts: 40 Member Member, Premium Posts: 40 Member
    My mother in law who had the first shot is overweight, in her 70's, closet smoker, and has COPD. We'll she got COVID pneumonia after Easter.
    She has been in the hospital still to this day and doing much better, but it was scary at first. She got out of the ICU 2 days ago. The doctor in the ER said if she didn't have that first dose, she may have not made it. Folks who have these preexisting conditions are prime candidates for the virus to cling to and wreak havoc.

    You have the right to NOT vax, but all I can say is those who don't vaccinate (with the exception of those who have a medical reason), we can thank you for wearing these damn masks longer. Some of the people who want everything opened up, are the same ones who won't vax. Oxymoron I guess...

    Sorry for being a little off topic.
  • LisaGetsMovingLisaGetsMoving Member Posts: 605 Member Member Posts: 605 Member

    How my husband convinced his anti-vax father was to tell him he wouldn’t talk to him until he had the vaccine, because he couldn’t be bothered breaking his heart over someone who didn’t want to live. Then when his father called he would say, “have you been vaccinated yet?” And hang up on him. It took three calls but it worked.

    My daughter and SIL) did similarly with his mother. She was told if she wanted to see the new grandchild she would get vax. So she did.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,201 Member Member Posts: 7,201 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    It never seemed like a terribly pertinent statistic to me, given that it would be affected by overall incidence of the disease and availability of ICU beds. That is, the degree of illness that would merit hospitalization is going to be depend on how many people there are who are sicker than you. I kept a much closer eye on deaths versus recovered cases.

    See I think that hospitalization rates are pertinent - because if the hospitals are full and the hospitalization rate is say 10%, then if those 10% can't access hospital care wouldn't the death rate go up?
    I guess I am assuming that those who require hospitalization would die without it - not sure if that is a valid assumption or not.
    When the hospitals are full (like they are here now our ICUs are over capacity) I get real nervous about getting sick.

    One other point about this is that depending on where you are, there are ways to increase hospital space significantly (the real capper being medical professionals available). We had additional space added for less seriously ill patients by converting non hospital space, and also a lot of non covid usage is for things that can be put off. It actually turned out to be less of a problem here when things were really bad than anticipated. They still give us the dramatic "hospital space is decreasing" stuff, even though at the moment the numbers of hospital beds available are really not a problem, and only 9% of current beds in use are covid or suspected covid.

    Things were of course way worse here earlier, especially about a year ago and lasting for quite a while.
  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    It never seemed like a terribly pertinent statistic to me, given that it would be affected by overall incidence of the disease and availability of ICU beds. That is, the degree of illness that would merit hospitalization is going to be depend on how many people there are who are sicker than you. I kept a much closer eye on deaths versus recovered cases.

    See I think that hospitalization rates are pertinent - because if the hospitals are full and the hospitalization rate is say 10%, then if those 10% can't access hospital care wouldn't the death rate go up?
    I guess I am assuming that those who require hospitalization would die without it - not sure if that is a valid assumption or not.
    When the hospitals are full (like they are here now our ICUs are over capacity) I get real nervous about getting sick.

    I think the percentage of infected who "require" hospitalization (i.e., who will be actually be admitted, which is what hospitalization rate measures, not those who "require" hospitalization by some constant objective measure of symptoms) will depend on the local, current incidence of disease, as will the range of severity of disease in those who are hospitalized. Low incidence of disease means those who are hospitalized will on average be less sick and stand a better chance of surviving without hospital care.

    It is at least theoretically possible (and I think practically likely) that maximum hospital capacity would be reached before maximum disease incidence in the local population is reached. Once that happens, % hospitalization won't change, but triage procedures should mean that the average severity of disease in hospitalized patients should increase as cases increase -- or perhaps at some point start to decrease, when conditions become so bad that they don't bother with those whose survival chances even with hospital care are rated too low.

    Why would people who are "less sick" be hospitalized if they don't need to be, even if the local incidence is low? I don't think that happens here.

    If say 10% who are symptomatic are sick enough that they might die without hospital care, then if the hospitals are full and they are turned away, the death rate would go up. I'm not sure how those who are "less sick" even play into that scenario, they would be at home recovering regardless.

    At any rate we will find out here shortly how this will play out - we are about to start triaging ICU patients because we have nowhere to put them. One year later and our government has *kitten* up so bad that people are gonna be dying for lack of available care. I mean I can see how it happened last year, but there is no reason that we should be in this position now.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,689 Member Member Posts: 8,689 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    It never seemed like a terribly pertinent statistic to me, given that it would be affected by overall incidence of the disease and availability of ICU beds. That is, the degree of illness that would merit hospitalization is going to be depend on how many people there are who are sicker than you. I kept a much closer eye on deaths versus recovered cases.

    See I think that hospitalization rates are pertinent - because if the hospitals are full and the hospitalization rate is say 10%, then if those 10% can't access hospital care wouldn't the death rate go up?
    I guess I am assuming that those who require hospitalization would die without it - not sure if that is a valid assumption or not.
    When the hospitals are full (like they are here now our ICUs are over capacity) I get real nervous about getting sick.

    I think the percentage of infected who "require" hospitalization (i.e., who will be actually be admitted, which is what hospitalization rate measures, not those who "require" hospitalization by some constant objective measure of symptoms) will depend on the local, current incidence of disease, as will the range of severity of disease in those who are hospitalized. Low incidence of disease means those who are hospitalized will on average be less sick and stand a better chance of surviving without hospital care.

    It is at least theoretically possible (and I think practically likely) that maximum hospital capacity would be reached before maximum disease incidence in the local population is reached. Once that happens, % hospitalization won't change, but triage procedures should mean that the average severity of disease in hospitalized patients should increase as cases increase -- or perhaps at some point start to decrease, when conditions become so bad that they don't bother with those whose survival chances even with hospital care are rated too low.

    Why would people who are "less sick" be hospitalized if they don't need to be, even if the local incidence is low? I don't think that happens here.


    If local incidence is low, there's plenty of room to admit people who might be at 10% risk of dying without hospitalization and maybe 1% risk of dying if hospitalized (just pulling number out of air here for purposes of explaining what I mean). I'm pretty sure during normal times if I present in an emergency room with some combination of immediate symptoms and medical history that puts me at 10% risk of dying if they don't admit me and 1% risk of dying if they do admit me, they're going to admit me.

    But if local incidence is high, hospital beds might be filled to an extent that triage requires them to raise the admission standard to being at 25% risk of dying if not admitted.
    If say 10% who are symptomatic are sick enough that they might die without hospital care, then if the hospitals are full and they are turned away, the death rate would go up. I'm not sure how those who are "less sick" even play into that scenario, they would be at home recovering regardless.

    Death rates do go up when people who are at lower risk of dying can't get care. Statistically, 10% of those in the 10% risk group die when sent home. But they haven't "wasted" 90% of the beds that would have been used for the rest of the 10% risk group if they were admitting them all, instead of using those beds for people in a higher risk group. Those who are "less sick" are admitted in a scenario with lots of hospital capacity relative to local incidence, and maybe only 1% of them die. In the scenario with strained hospital capacity, those who are "less sick" get sent home in favor of admitting those with higher risk of death without hospitalization, and 10% of the low-riskers sent home die (using 10% risk we coincidentally both adopted for the low-risk group).

    At any rate we will find out here shortly how this will play out - we are about to start triaging ICU patients because we have nowhere to put them. One year later and our government has *kitten* up so bad that people are gonna be dying for lack of available care. I mean I can see how it happened last year, but there is no reason that we should be in this position now.

    That's very sad. I hope things turn out better than circumstances seem to make likely. Right now in my area I'm worried about more deadly variants circulating among people who are unwilling to get vaccinated.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,201 Member Member Posts: 7,201 Member
    It's sad across the world, and India is very worrying.

    It is kind of interesting to compare Ontario to the US, where I think we are jaded.

    The current Ontario numbers appear to be:

    3682 new cases

    40 deaths (7-day average of deaths peaked at 60, in the second wave)

    Total deaths 7829

    Case numbers (happily) supposedly plateauing.

    Ontario has a population of about 14.6 m.

    Illinois (as just one example of a US state, not too far away) has a population of only 12.6 m.

    Current new cases: 3170 [huge improvement, but we do seem to be testing more as our positivity rate is a lot less, it was much higher in May of last year, though)

    Deaths: 33

    Total deaths: 21,755

    Worst coronavirus death dates here: 192 deaths on May 31, 2020 (16th day in a row with more than 100 deaths, only 1677 cases on that day, since testing was still far too little). 12/20/20 had 196 deaths. Most of the May deaths were in Chicago or close, a much smaller area.

    However, because our current stats are WAY better than the worst of this (and because of how long this has been a serious issue here) and of course bc of vaccines, we are seeing the current numbers as huge improvements rather than really bad, comparatively, based on most I've talked to. It's certainly nothing like May of '20 or even last winter. It almost feels like it's finally almost over here.
    edited April 23
  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    It never seemed like a terribly pertinent statistic to me, given that it would be affected by overall incidence of the disease and availability of ICU beds. That is, the degree of illness that would merit hospitalization is going to be depend on how many people there are who are sicker than you. I kept a much closer eye on deaths versus recovered cases.

    See I think that hospitalization rates are pertinent - because if the hospitals are full and the hospitalization rate is say 10%, then if those 10% can't access hospital care wouldn't the death rate go up?
    I guess I am assuming that those who require hospitalization would die without it - not sure if that is a valid assumption or not.
    When the hospitals are full (like they are here now our ICUs are over capacity) I get real nervous about getting sick.

    I think the percentage of infected who "require" hospitalization (i.e., who will be actually be admitted, which is what hospitalization rate measures, not those who "require" hospitalization by some constant objective measure of symptoms) will depend on the local, current incidence of disease, as will the range of severity of disease in those who are hospitalized. Low incidence of disease means those who are hospitalized will on average be less sick and stand a better chance of surviving without hospital care.

    It is at least theoretically possible (and I think practically likely) that maximum hospital capacity would be reached before maximum disease incidence in the local population is reached. Once that happens, % hospitalization won't change, but triage procedures should mean that the average severity of disease in hospitalized patients should increase as cases increase -- or perhaps at some point start to decrease, when conditions become so bad that they don't bother with those whose survival chances even with hospital care are rated too low.

    Why would people who are "less sick" be hospitalized if they don't need to be, even if the local incidence is low? I don't think that happens here.


    If local incidence is low, there's plenty of room to admit people who might be at 10% risk of dying without hospitalization and maybe 1% risk of dying if hospitalized (just pulling number out of air here for purposes of explaining what I mean). I'm pretty sure during normal times if I present in an emergency room with some combination of immediate symptoms and medical history that puts me at 10% risk of dying if they don't admit me and 1% risk of dying if they do admit me, they're going to admit me.

    But if local incidence is high, hospital beds might be filled to an extent that triage requires them to raise the admission standard to being at 25% risk of dying if not admitted.
    If say 10% who are symptomatic are sick enough that they might die without hospital care, then if the hospitals are full and they are turned away, the death rate would go up. I'm not sure how those who are "less sick" even play into that scenario, they would be at home recovering regardless.

    Death rates do go up when people who are at lower risk of dying can't get care. Statistically, 10% of those in the 10% risk group die when sent home. But they haven't "wasted" 90% of the beds that would have been used for the rest of the 10% risk group if they were admitting them all, instead of using those beds for people in a higher risk group. Those who are "less sick" are admitted in a scenario with lots of hospital capacity relative to local incidence, and maybe only 1% of them die. In the scenario with strained hospital capacity, those who are "less sick" get sent home in favor of admitting those with higher risk of death without hospitalization, and 10% of the low-riskers sent home die (using 10% risk we coincidentally both adopted for the low-risk group).

    At any rate we will find out here shortly how this will play out - we are about to start triaging ICU patients because we have nowhere to put them. One year later and our government has *kitten* up so bad that people are gonna be dying for lack of available care. I mean I can see how it happened last year, but there is no reason that we should be in this position now.

    That's very sad. I hope things turn out better than circumstances seem to make likely. Right now in my area I'm worried about more deadly variants circulating among people who are unwilling to get vaccinated.

    OK yeah that makes sense - I get what you are saying about the hospitalizations.

    We have the opposite of vaccine hesitancy here - we don't have enough vaccine for the demand. My daughter and one son are both technically eligible based on the areas where they live being "hot spots" for transmission - but as soon as they open slots up the appointments are taken.
    edited April 23
  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    It's sad across the world, and India is very worrying.

    It is kind of interesting to compare Ontario to the US, where I think we are jaded.

    The current Ontario numbers appear to be:

    3682 new cases

    40 deaths (7-day average of deaths peaked at 60, in the second wave)

    Total deaths 7829

    Case numbers (happily) supposedly plateauing.

    Ontario has a population of about 14.6 m.

    Illinois (as just one example of a US state, not too far away) has a population of only 12.6 m.

    Current new cases: 3170 [huge improvement, but we do seem to be testing more as our positivity rate is a lot less, it was much higher in May of last year, though)

    Deaths: 33

    Total deaths: 21,755

    Worst coronavirus death dates here: 192 deaths on May 31, 2020 (16th day in a row with more than 100 deaths, only 1677 cases on that day, since testing was still far too little). 12/20/20 had 196 deaths. Most of the May deaths were in Chicago or close, a much smaller area.

    However, because our current stats are WAY better than the worst of this (and because of how long this has been a serious issue here) and of course bc of vaccines, we are seeing the current numbers as huge improvements rather than really bad, comparatively, based on most I've talked to. It's certainly nothing like May of '20 or even last winter. It almost feels like it's finally almost over here.

    That is an interesting comparison. Our case rates, hospitalizations and ICU rates are higher than they have ever been right now. We are in a six week modified lockdown with a "stay at home" order in place because "modelling" was showing that without interventions our cases could climb to 18,000 per day with the variants, and limited vaccine coverage. Cases have stopped climbing the last couple of days but I'm not sure it is enough to show a pattern yet.

    There is a lot of anger at the gov't because we are having workplace outbreaks, which are hitting younger, low income and racialized people who aren't yet eligible for vaccines, have no paid sick coverage, and can't work from home (factories, food processing, etc) so they are pivoting away from age based eligibility and trying to hit the hot spots where transmission is high.

    The thing that kind of shocks me is how "easily" our hospitals seem to get overwhelmed - we have 805 people in ICU right now and there is a lot of doom and gloom in the news about how 900 is the number when they are going to have to start "triaging" people for ICU beds. They have cancelled all elective and non urgent surgeries and procedures in the province. I guess I never realized how health care capacity works, or else ours is really bad here, but I would have never expected that in a province of almost 15 million people 900 in ICU would crash the entire system. I also heard on the news today that there are 1-2 people per day they are finding dying at home, they are sick and then deteriorating so quickly that they don't even get to the hospital before they die - that is something new that hasn't been happening here before.

  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 31,255 Member Member Posts: 31,255 Member
    @33gail33

    We had that exact same scenario about triaging here in the PNW, U.S. It didn't actually happen, but I think it did scare people enough to start being more cautious. I know NY had a lack of availability and many people allegedly were sent home to die (last year.) How much of that is true and how much of it is just alarmist messaging, I don't have any way to know.


    I think hospitals operate on a pretty small margin of ICU availability as it is. My understanding from talking with people who work in hospitals is that it is possible to ramp up ICU availability and they do when it becomes necessary but their profits are driven by elective and emergency surgeries, medical treatments, and procedures like chemo and dialysis. ICU is super expensive, and the problem is lack of qualified staffing...so part of the messaging is from a PR/hospital viewpoint, too. It's a balancing act that is difficult to do for them, and part of the messaging has to be dollar driven I'm sure.




    edited April 23
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,201 Member Member Posts: 7,201 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    It never seemed like a terribly pertinent statistic to me, given that it would be affected by overall incidence of the disease and availability of ICU beds. That is, the degree of illness that would merit hospitalization is going to be depend on how many people there are who are sicker than you. I kept a much closer eye on deaths versus recovered cases.

    See I think that hospitalization rates are pertinent - because if the hospitals are full and the hospitalization rate is say 10%, then if those 10% can't access hospital care wouldn't the death rate go up?
    I guess I am assuming that those who require hospitalization would die without it - not sure if that is a valid assumption or not.
    When the hospitals are full (like they are here now our ICUs are over capacity) I get real nervous about getting sick.

    I think the percentage of infected who "require" hospitalization (i.e., who will be actually be admitted, which is what hospitalization rate measures, not those who "require" hospitalization by some constant objective measure of symptoms) will depend on the local, current incidence of disease, as will the range of severity of disease in those who are hospitalized. Low incidence of disease means those who are hospitalized will on average be less sick and stand a better chance of surviving without hospital care.

    It is at least theoretically possible (and I think practically likely) that maximum hospital capacity would be reached before maximum disease incidence in the local population is reached. Once that happens, % hospitalization won't change, but triage procedures should mean that the average severity of disease in hospitalized patients should increase as cases increase -- or perhaps at some point start to decrease, when conditions become so bad that they don't bother with those whose survival chances even with hospital care are rated too low.

    Why would people who are "less sick" be hospitalized if they don't need to be, even if the local incidence is low? I don't think that happens here.


    If local incidence is low, there's plenty of room to admit people who might be at 10% risk of dying without hospitalization and maybe 1% risk of dying if hospitalized (just pulling number out of air here for purposes of explaining what I mean). I'm pretty sure during normal times if I present in an emergency room with some combination of immediate symptoms and medical history that puts me at 10% risk of dying if they don't admit me and 1% risk of dying if they do admit me, they're going to admit me.

    But if local incidence is high, hospital beds might be filled to an extent that triage requires them to raise the admission standard to being at 25% risk of dying if not admitted.
    If say 10% who are symptomatic are sick enough that they might die without hospital care, then if the hospitals are full and they are turned away, the death rate would go up. I'm not sure how those who are "less sick" even play into that scenario, they would be at home recovering regardless.

    Death rates do go up when people who are at lower risk of dying can't get care. Statistically, 10% of those in the 10% risk group die when sent home. But they haven't "wasted" 90% of the beds that would have been used for the rest of the 10% risk group if they were admitting them all, instead of using those beds for people in a higher risk group. Those who are "less sick" are admitted in a scenario with lots of hospital capacity relative to local incidence, and maybe only 1% of them die. In the scenario with strained hospital capacity, those who are "less sick" get sent home in favor of admitting those with higher risk of death without hospitalization, and 10% of the low-riskers sent home die (using 10% risk we coincidentally both adopted for the low-risk group).

    At any rate we will find out here shortly how this will play out - we are about to start triaging ICU patients because we have nowhere to put them. One year later and our government has *kitten* up so bad that people are gonna be dying for lack of available care. I mean I can see how it happened last year, but there is no reason that we should be in this position now.

    That's very sad. I hope things turn out better than circumstances seem to make likely. Right now in my area I'm worried about more deadly variants circulating among people who are unwilling to get vaccinated.

    OK yeah that makes sense - I get what you are saying about the hospitalizations.

    We have the opposite of vaccine hesitancy here - we don't have enough vaccine for the demand. My daughter and one son are both technically eligible based on the areas where they live being "hot spots" for transmission - but as soon as they open slots up the appointments are taken.

    That's how it was here for a long time (still in some places, and I know people here and some other places who badly want it but haven't managed to get it yet). But now that the people who really wanted it have mostly gotten it, and it's more available, we are going to find out what percentage of the population is actually resistant, even after many others have gotten it.

  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member
    @33gail33

    We had that exact same scenario about triaging here in the PNW, U.S. It didn't actually happen, but I think it did scare people enough to start being more cautious. I know NY had a lack of availability and many people allegedly were sent home to die (last year.) How much of that is true and how much of it is just alarmist messaging, I don't have any way to know.


    I think hospitals operate on a pretty small margin of ICU availability as it is. My understanding from talking with people who work in hospitals is that it is possible to ramp up ICU availability and they do when it becomes necessary but their profits are driven by elective and emergency surgeries, medical treatments, and procedures like chemo and dialysis. ICU is super expensive, and the problem is lack of qualified staffing...so part of the messaging is from a PR/hospital viewpoint, too. It's a balancing act that is difficult to do for them, and part of the messaging has to be dollar driven I'm sure.

    It's a bit different here, we have universal health care and our hospitals are government funded and non profit. It is dollar driven in the sense that they are taxpayer funded and have a budget, but I think the issue is more that they don't have the staff to monitor many more ICU beds, or space I guess for the equipment they need? Not really sure. But from a financial perspective there is no way the government would come out and say there was any sort of financial cap on how much funding they would provide - that would not fly here.
  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 31,255 Member Member Posts: 31,255 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @33gail33

    We had that exact same scenario about triaging here in the PNW, U.S. It didn't actually happen, but I think it did scare people enough to start being more cautious. I know NY had a lack of availability and many people allegedly were sent home to die (last year.) How much of that is true and how much of it is just alarmist messaging, I don't have any way to know.


    I think hospitals operate on a pretty small margin of ICU availability as it is. My understanding from talking with people who work in hospitals is that it is possible to ramp up ICU availability and they do when it becomes necessary but their profits are driven by elective and emergency surgeries, medical treatments, and procedures like chemo and dialysis. ICU is super expensive, and the problem is lack of qualified staffing...so part of the messaging is from a PR/hospital viewpoint, too. It's a balancing act that is difficult to do for them, and part of the messaging has to be dollar driven I'm sure.

    It's a bit different here, we have universal health care and our hospitals are government funded and non profit. It is dollar driven in the sense that they are taxpayer funded and have a budget, but I think the issue is more that they don't have the staff to monitor many more ICU beds, or space I guess for the equipment they need? Not really sure. But from a financial perspective there is no way the government would come out and say there was any sort of financial cap on how much funding they would provide - that would not fly here.


    Of course. That wouldn't fly here, either.

    It's just not like they can get a whole bunch of newly trained ICU staff...it's not something that can be trained in a few months. People here in the U.S. are not generally flocking to the nursing profession ever, but especially right now.

    There's only so much that can be done and we're all being called on to do our parts...in the U.S at least there are many MANY people who just refuse.


    They can refuse their masks and their vaccinations and they can continue to chat in groups at their peril.

    It's not like they haven't been warned.



    Yesterday I had to step off the sidewalk into the street on a walk when I approached an elderly man who wore no mask. My mask was in my pocket and it was just easier to step off the sidewalk than to put it on - and I was just going to walk past him but he called out, "I don't know why people are wearing masks, they don't do any good."

    I said, "I have one, it's in my pocket."

    I stopped and asked him if he was okay (he was sitting with his legs on the sidewalk.)

    "Yeah, I'm just weed whacking. I'm 85, it's hard to get back up." (He did get back up just fine, I didn't just ignore that.)

    I said, "Well, you got vaccinated, right?"

    "NO! The vaccination is more dangerous than the thing."


    Me, "Okay then. Have a nice day."

  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @33gail33

    We had that exact same scenario about triaging here in the PNW, U.S. It didn't actually happen, but I think it did scare people enough to start being more cautious. I know NY had a lack of availability and many people allegedly were sent home to die (last year.) How much of that is true and how much of it is just alarmist messaging, I don't have any way to know.


    I think hospitals operate on a pretty small margin of ICU availability as it is. My understanding from talking with people who work in hospitals is that it is possible to ramp up ICU availability and they do when it becomes necessary but their profits are driven by elective and emergency surgeries, medical treatments, and procedures like chemo and dialysis. ICU is super expensive, and the problem is lack of qualified staffing...so part of the messaging is from a PR/hospital viewpoint, too. It's a balancing act that is difficult to do for them, and part of the messaging has to be dollar driven I'm sure.

    It's a bit different here, we have universal health care and our hospitals are government funded and non profit. It is dollar driven in the sense that they are taxpayer funded and have a budget, but I think the issue is more that they don't have the staff to monitor many more ICU beds, or space I guess for the equipment they need? Not really sure. But from a financial perspective there is no way the government would come out and say there was any sort of financial cap on how much funding they would provide - that would not fly here.


    Of course. That wouldn't fly here, either.

    It's just not like they can get a whole bunch of newly trained ICU staff...it's not something that can be trained in a few months. People here in the U.S. are not generally flocking to the nursing profession ever, but especially right now.

    There's only so much that can be done and we're all being called on to do our parts...in the U.S at least there are many MANY people who just refuse.


    They can refuse their masks and their vaccinations and they can continue to chat in groups at their peril.

    It's not like they haven't been warned.



    Yesterday I had to step off the sidewalk into the street on a walk when I approached an elderly man who wore no mask. My mask was in my pocket and it was just easier to step off the sidewalk than to put it on - and I was just going to walk past him but he called out, "I don't know why people are wearing masks, they don't do any good."

    I said, "I have one, it's in my pocket."

    I stopped and asked him if he was okay (he was sitting with his legs on the sidewalk.)

    "Yeah, I'm just weed whacking. I'm 85, it's hard to get back up." (He did get back up just fine, I didn't just ignore that.)

    I said, "Well, you got vaccinated, right?"

    "NO! The vaccination is more dangerous than the thing."


    Me, "Okay then. Have a nice day."

    I don't wear a mask outside, but I live in the suburbs and can easily stay away from people.
    Part of what doctors are complaining about here is the whole emphasis on the "do our part" thing. Their point is that there is a lot of shaming about people not following the guidelines, but the reality here is that the people who are getting sick and dying now are essential workers who are still too young to be eligible for the vaccine, and their families (especially in multi generational households). So basically people who may be doing everything right, but can't work from home, and are not getting the protection they need in their workplaces.
  • Theo166Theo166 Member, Premium Posts: 2,508 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,508 Member
    The non-vax hospitalization rate should roughly be the same as the hospitalization rate before we had the vaccine, if anything it should be improving since people with higher risk conditions and the old are getting vaccinated and stepping out of the population.

    It's 178 per 100k, or about 0.2%

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/covid-19-us-hospital-rate-by-age/
Sign In or Register to comment.