rt.live
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
Flatten the curve, not eradicate the virus. It's always been about not overwhelming the medical system.
Flattening the curve doesn't seem to be working for a lot of the country. Not particularly surprising when you see how everybody is behaving.
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
I haven't read anything about hospitals and ICUs being overwhelmed, turning patients away in the last 5-6 weeks. Have you?
If not, the "flattening" has worked. If you want to talk about infection rates, that's another discussion.
wrote on 21 Jun 2020, 23:27 last edited by"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
Exactly. Suddenly everyone is moving the goalpost. It would be great if we could stop the spread completely, but the cost is likely too high, and that wasn’t the goal in the first place.
-
wrote on 21 Jun 2020, 23:52 last edited by
Thank you
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
Flatten the curve, not eradicate the virus. It's always been about not overwhelming the medical system.
Flattening the curve doesn't seem to be working for a lot of the country. Not particularly surprising when you see how everybody is behaving.
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
I haven't read anything about hospitals and ICUs being overwhelmed, turning patients away in the last 5-6 weeks. Have you?
If not, the "flattening" has worked. If you want to talk about infection rates, that's another discussion.
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 02:19 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
Flatten the curve, not eradicate the virus. It's always been about not overwhelming the medical system.
Flattening the curve doesn't seem to be working for a lot of the country. Not particularly surprising when you see how everybody is behaving.
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
I haven't read anything about hospitals and ICUs being overwhelmed, turning patients away in the last 5-6 weeks. Have you?
If not, the "flattening" has worked. If you want to talk about infection rates, that's another discussion.
Unfortunately I think that one thing will lead inevitably to the other. I don't see how a high infection rate is sustainable without overwhelming the local hospitals. I'd love to be wrong.
-
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
Exactly. Suddenly everyone is moving the goalpost. It would be great if we could stop the spread completely, but the cost is likely too high, and that wasn’t the goal in the first place.
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 13:12 last edited by"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
Exactly. Suddenly everyone is moving the goalpost. It would be great if we could stop the spread completely, but the cost is likely too high, and that wasn’t the goal in the first place.
The 'behavior' I was referring to was protests, political rallies, massive groups of people congregating at the beach. The cost of not doing those things is not too high IMHO.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
Flatten the curve, not eradicate the virus. It's always been about not overwhelming the medical system.
Flattening the curve doesn't seem to be working for a lot of the country. Not particularly surprising when you see how everybody is behaving.
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
I haven't read anything about hospitals and ICUs being overwhelmed, turning patients away in the last 5-6 weeks. Have you?
If not, the "flattening" has worked. If you want to talk about infection rates, that's another discussion.
Unfortunately I think that one thing will lead inevitably to the other. I don't see how a high infection rate is sustainable without overwhelming the local hospitals. I'd love to be wrong.
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 14:46 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
Flatten the curve, not eradicate the virus. It's always been about not overwhelming the medical system.
Flattening the curve doesn't seem to be working for a lot of the country. Not particularly surprising when you see how everybody is behaving.
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
I haven't read anything about hospitals and ICUs being overwhelmed, turning patients away in the last 5-6 weeks. Have you?
If not, the "flattening" has worked. If you want to talk about infection rates, that's another discussion.
Unfortunately I think that one thing will lead inevitably to the other. I don't see how a high infection rate is sustainable without overwhelming the local hospitals. I'd love to be wrong.
Sadly, you're right.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
Flatten the curve, not eradicate the virus. It's always been about not overwhelming the medical system.
Flattening the curve doesn't seem to be working for a lot of the country. Not particularly surprising when you see how everybody is behaving.
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
I haven't read anything about hospitals and ICUs being overwhelmed, turning patients away in the last 5-6 weeks. Have you?
If not, the "flattening" has worked. If you want to talk about infection rates, that's another discussion.
Unfortunately I think that one thing will lead inevitably to the other. I don't see how a high infection rate is sustainable without overwhelming the local hospitals. I'd love to be wrong.
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 16:29 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
Flatten the curve, not eradicate the virus. It's always been about not overwhelming the medical system.
Flattening the curve doesn't seem to be working for a lot of the country. Not particularly surprising when you see how everybody is behaving.
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
I haven't read anything about hospitals and ICUs being overwhelmed, turning patients away in the last 5-6 weeks. Have you?
If not, the "flattening" has worked. If you want to talk about infection rates, that's another discussion.
Unfortunately I think that one thing will lead inevitably to the other. I don't see how a high infection rate is sustainable without overwhelming the local hospitals. I'd love to be wrong.
What do you define as "high" and over how long of a period of time?
Virginia is adding on 500 cases a day, and we are being told that is quite manageable for a long time. On April 22nd we were adding on 600 cases a day and it was the apocalypse...
-
"Flattening the Curve" was all about not overwhelming the healthcare facilities, not about reducing mortality or infection rates.
Exactly. Suddenly everyone is moving the goalpost. It would be great if we could stop the spread completely, but the cost is likely too high, and that wasn’t the goal in the first place.
The 'behavior' I was referring to was protests, political rallies, massive groups of people congregating at the beach. The cost of not doing those things is not too high IMHO.
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 16:31 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
The 'behavior' I was referring to was protests, political rallies, massive groups of people congregating at the beach. The cost of not doing those things is not too high IMHO.
I agree about the beach, and I also agree about the current protests and rallies. However, that doesn't mean that the costs of all protests are too high. There are some political causes that are worth some risk.
-
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 18:59 last edited by Doctor Phibes
Hypothetically, there's always something worth putting people at risk over. For some people, it's defending against the Nazi hordes, for others it's getting childcare 250 miles away and visiting a historic monument to "test their eyesight".
-
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 19:03 last edited by
For some reason I cannot think of any political cause at the moment worth that risk. Colour me complacent.
-
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 20:23 last edited by
Black lives have been considered worthless for all of America’s history. If white people die of COVID due to the BLM protests, well, good.
-
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 20:54 last edited by
Yes, those whites are awful
The men are the worst
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 16:04 last edited by
According to rt.live Massachusetts now has the lowest transmission rate in the country. I seem to think 3 months ago we were 3rd or 4th highest.
You do see a lot of masks here, even out in the burbs.
-
According to rt.live Massachusetts now has the lowest transmission rate in the country. I seem to think 3 months ago we were 3rd or 4th highest.
You do see a lot of masks here, even out in the burbs.
wrote on 24 Jun 2020, 03:01 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in rt.live:
According to rt.live Massachusetts now has the lowest transmission rate in the country. I seem to think 3 months ago we were 3rd or 4th highest.
You do see a lot of masks here, even out in the burbs.
It’s true that Mass is doing a great job currently but so are most if not all the states that got hit the hardest initially. Whether they are doing something different or there is a bit of catch up going on is an interesting question. I have no position on this just a data observation.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2020, 16:24 last edited by
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2020, 17:05 last edited by
@LuFins-Dad Wow!!!
Can the states that are doing so well continue to do so? I would think that maybe they can.
People may be realizing the situation that is occurring around the US, and that may make them follow the rules/recommendations more closely (states like IL, CT, ND, etc). At least I hope so.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2020, 17:13 last edited by
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2020, 17:28 last edited by jon-nyc
Interesting stat, new cases (rolling) per 1MM population per day.
AZ 384
SC 207
AK 196
FL 187
MS 186
TX 158
UT 158
LA 147
AL 146
CA 125
GA 137
NV 129
NC 123
TN 109
IA 106To put it in perspective, NY peaked at about 540 per million per day (rolling 7 day ave).
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2020, 18:07 last edited by
Build that wall.
-
@LuFins-Dad Wow!!!
Can the states that are doing so well continue to do so? I would think that maybe they can.
People may be realizing the situation that is occurring around the US, and that may make them follow the rules/recommendations more closely (states like IL, CT, ND, etc). At least I hope so.
wrote on 26 Jun 2020, 18:41 last edited by@taiwan_girl The answer seems to be no right now. When George posted that picture, over half of the states were Yellow or Green. One week later, only 17 are. Several green states went straight into the red, and even some of the yellow states are running low on ICU beds.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2020, 21:34 last edited by
Did most states make progress during shelter in place, with preparations for a spike?
