- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Choice (Non Political, Please)
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:03 pm to The Spleen
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:03 pm to The Spleen
quote:
UAB hospital already runs at around 90% occupancy in available beds.
I'm hearing the hospitals cleared out everyone they could, and are presently running less than 50% of ordinary census.
0
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:04 pm to JudgeHolden
So you're saying...
What are you saying?
What are you saying?
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:08 pm to PiscesTiger
What I am saying is
quote:
Isn’t that the choice?
This post was edited on 3/27/20 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:10 pm to The Spleen
quote:Most hospitals have cleared out as much as they can and occupancy is lower than standard.
Population density plays a huge part, but I was talking more on the strain on the hospitals there. Here in Bham, UAB hospital already runs at around 90% occupancy in available beds. It wouldn't take much to push that to 100% and beyond. That doesn't account for other hospitals in the area of course.
On top of that, ER visits are significantly down for non-covid diseases.
This is actually a fantastic look at how ERs are used as non-emergent primary care clinics.
quote:That is a year round characteristic that even flu affects.
And in more rural areas with smaller hospitals, just a handful of cases can push them to the brink.
The big issue is, it would make significantly more sense to apply increasing restrictions as needed, rather than blanket for a multitude of reasons.
On top of that, testing has become more readily available as well.
Soft restrictions for less affected areas and more severe for places that need them allows for less of an economic impact and a level of response to change if need be.
This post was edited on 3/27/20 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:12 pm to JudgeHolden
The common sense solution has always been to protect those in high risk groups and go back to normalcy for everybody else.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:14 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
We are putting a two trillion dollar bet down.
But we're only getting $1200, fricking politicians
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:21 pm to Slingin Pickle
quote:
If we open it up too soon some old people might die
My wife is an ICU nurse and its not all old people in there. at least half the covid patietnts are in their 40s and 50s and people in their mid to late 30s aren't exactly rare.
And no not all of them have preexisting conditions.
I am not saying that we need to keep everything shut down completely or forever but people acing like this is a nothing burger are being willfully ignorant.
Ochsner in New Orleans has opened up 102 new ICU beds for this covid outbreak and they are still working on creating more because thats how many people are ending up in the ICUs. These beds are filling up while we are practicing social distancing, opening things up runs the risk of the hospitals not being able to keep up.
Right now the death rate is like .5% or whatever it is but that is because the hospitals can take care of everyone at the moment. If they get overrun like Italy, the death rate will be much higher. Not to mention all the deaths that will be indirectly caused by this due to there being no ICU space for strokes and heart attacks and every other every day cause for hospitalization.
I get the economy is a worry but right now the stock market is climbing every day despite things remaining the same socially.
When they do open things back up, they need to still have regulations such as tables in restaurants need to be 6 feet apart and completely disinfected between parties. Not to mention if they just open things back up all at once with no regulations then they caused the economy to drop, caused unemployment to rise AND failed to keep the hospitals from being overrun.
I feel like at this point they picked their poison and they have to figure it out.
This post was edited on 3/27/20 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:25 pm to Scruffy
quote:
he big issue is, it would make significantly more sense to apply increasing restrictions as needed, rather than blanket for a multitude of reasons.
On top of that, testing has become more readily available as well.
Scruffy pretty much nailed it. The solution isn't no precautions but it isn't a blanket shut down either. With more testing available, we should be able to better quarantine the sick and control an explosion of cases.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:32 pm to Scruffy
quote:
On top of that, ER visits are significantly down for non-covid diseases.
This is actually a fantastic look at how ERs are used as non-emergent primary care clinics.
This is my favorite side effect. Maybe we should tell the masses that the ER always has infectious diseases in them and people will only use it for actual emergencies.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:38 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
As others have said, it's important to understand that we aren't facing a binary choice where our only options are "No commerce for a year, let's have Great Depression 2.0" or "Open up everything, everywhere, by Easter, kiss granny bye-bye!"
The key thing is how will these decisions about what public health protocols should be enacted in all of these different places be made. What values are shaping these decisions? Are they being based on the advice of medical professionals, or are other considerations overruling their recommendations?
The key thing is how will these decisions about what public health protocols should be enacted in all of these different places be made. What values are shaping these decisions? Are they being based on the advice of medical professionals, or are other considerations overruling their recommendations?
This post was edited on 3/27/20 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:39 pm to AUCE05
K. Child.
Maybe if you grow up one day you'll understand how the economy &the world works. But you know nothing.
Go back to your safe space.
Maybe if you grow up one day you'll understand how the economy &the world works. But you know nothing.
Go back to your safe space.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 12:40 pm to Slingin Pickle
quote:
If we keep the economy closed too long, we lose it. If we open it up too soon some old people might die but the economy will recover just fine.
If this was the actual choice, it would've been made already.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 2:21 pm to jchamil
quote:
I just don't see how that happens everywhere else. I live in Collierville, TN and work in Memphis. We don't live on top of each other here like they do in NYC, and we don't have commuter trains/subways. It is scary what is going on up there, but I don't think you can compare NYC to every corner of America.
I agree that NYC is a most dangerous case scenario for the basic spread in the USA.
For dealing with infections though, per capita hospital beds, equipment and medical professionals to sick patients is crucial. I really have no idea how Memphis or Jackson MS or Dothan AL --just for examples -- stack up to NYC area in that regard.
Bottom line though, regardless of anyone's opinion, there's just not going to be enough support among experts or everyone else to re-open much if NYC starts to have the issues Italy/Spain has with death rates soaring to 8-10% accompanied by horror stories of people suffocating because they're aren't enough ventilators to go around.
Anyone who really wants to see things shifting back to normal by Easter or late April should hope Trump/Federal government is flooding NYC with supplies/ventilators in a hurry so they can show there was more than needed instead of a shortage.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 3:05 pm to JudgeHolden
Posted on 3/27/20 at 3:16 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
If there aren't places to spend that cash, what good does it do to give the cash out in the first place?
The money is intended for people to pay their mortgages and other bills and to keep food on the table.
The government isn't giving out money so you can go to the fricking mall...
Posted on 3/27/20 at 3:17 pm to JudgeHolden
Posted on 3/27/20 at 3:19 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
The government isn't giving out money so you can go to the fricking mall...
10 years ago I would have went strait to guitar center or to music heavy pawn shops. 100%. I could have lived without food.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 3:20 pm to JudgeHolden
2 trillion is a joke. Way too much pork.
Help businesses and people hurt by the shutdown. Cut the pork and dont pay those unaffected.
Those of you who are 30 years old will be paying for th his for decades.
Help businesses and people hurt by the shutdown. Cut the pork and dont pay those unaffected.
Those of you who are 30 years old will be paying for th his for decades.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 4:00 pm to JudgeHolden
I started getting the same idea really. I think everyone from every political persuasion can agree that WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO LIVE LIKE THIS. The amount of time seems to be the argument.
So do we rip the bandaid off quickly and get everyone sick to get it over with one way or the other? Maybe get 4 areas set up (North, South, East, West) with military makeshift hospitals with the increased ventilator supply that should be coming online for the weakest most stricken of us. Yes we lose however many it ends up being is the death rate (probably MUCH lower rate than what we're seeing now).
Or do we continue to distance and sit in our holes waiting on death's knock? Knowing that you cannot eradicate this virus so once the curfews and things are lifted, we'll be right back where we were with the spread. So all we did was buy more time. And in turn, make us less prepared due to factories and stores going offline.
I'm pretty much in the Rip it off fast and have huge events to spread it as much as possible and letting the chips fall where they may. I realize we'll see deaths but we're told that's the eventual reality we cannot run from anyway. Not really sure how else this ends honestly.
So do we rip the bandaid off quickly and get everyone sick to get it over with one way or the other? Maybe get 4 areas set up (North, South, East, West) with military makeshift hospitals with the increased ventilator supply that should be coming online for the weakest most stricken of us. Yes we lose however many it ends up being is the death rate (probably MUCH lower rate than what we're seeing now).
Or do we continue to distance and sit in our holes waiting on death's knock? Knowing that you cannot eradicate this virus so once the curfews and things are lifted, we'll be right back where we were with the spread. So all we did was buy more time. And in turn, make us less prepared due to factories and stores going offline.
I'm pretty much in the Rip it off fast and have huge events to spread it as much as possible and letting the chips fall where they may. I realize we'll see deaths but we're told that's the eventual reality we cannot run from anyway. Not really sure how else this ends honestly.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News