US Field Hospitals Stand Down, Most Without Treating Any COVID-19 Patients (npr.org) 240
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: As hospitals were overrun by coronavirus patients in other parts of the world, the Army Corps of Engineers mobilized in the U.S., hiring private contractors to build emergency field hospitals around the country. The endeavor cost more than $660 million, according to an NPR analysis of federal spending records. But nearly four months into the pandemic, most of these facilities haven't treated a single patient. Public health experts said this episode exposes how ill-prepared the U.S. is for a pandemic. They praised the Army Corps for quickly providing thousands of extra beds, but experts said there wasn't enough planning to make sure these field hospitals could be put to use once they were finished. "It's so painful because what it's showing is that the plans we have in place, they don't work," said Robyn Gershon, a professor at New York University's School of Global Public Health. "We have to go back to the drawing board and redo it."
But the nation's governors -- who requested the Army Corps projects and, in some cases, contributed state funding -- said they're relieved these facilities didn't get more use. They said early models predicted a catastrophic shortage of hospital beds, and no one knew for sure when or if stay-at-home orders would reduce the spread of the coronavirus. "All those field hospitals and available beds sit empty today," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said last month. "And that's a very, very good thing." Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, said: "These 1,000-bed alternate care sites are not necessary; they're not filled. Thank God." Senior military leaders also said the effort was a success -- even if the beds sit empty.
But the nation's governors -- who requested the Army Corps projects and, in some cases, contributed state funding -- said they're relieved these facilities didn't get more use. They said early models predicted a catastrophic shortage of hospital beds, and no one knew for sure when or if stay-at-home orders would reduce the spread of the coronavirus. "All those field hospitals and available beds sit empty today," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said last month. "And that's a very, very good thing." Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, said: "These 1,000-bed alternate care sites are not necessary; they're not filled. Thank God." Senior military leaders also said the effort was a success -- even if the beds sit empty.
I'm just going to say it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when you don't put experts who study in charge. And we know exactly who and what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, you do still have to listen to them (Score:4, Insightful)
We had the answer right there [politico.com] and ignored it. Mind you, not without reason [thenation.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you make it through the day? First you were saying we were all going to die because Trump is an idiot, and his handling of this was terrible and he wasn't listening to the experts. Now you're saying that he didn't hire the "right kind of experts" thus assets went unused.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you make it through the day with seeing words that weren't there and perhaps those that were there.
He never said Trump was an idiot. He said people in charge (Trump+) were not doing their jobs.
By comparing the events and numbers to other countries even ones being affected severe like Italy and Spain - which achieved the turn around - in contrast to the actions of Mr. Trump it is obvious that:
a.) Trump has underestimated the crisis ("just like a flu") this is far from being a single incident as the PO
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's an old joke, but sadly it rings true:
"If Trump cured cancer, Democrats would attack him for putting cancer doctors out of business."
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that the doctors and experts that the left were lauding were yes men? Or are you saying that the taskforce was "too white" like the progressives and democrats? Just trying to get an understanding of exactly how far out you actually are in trying to reinvent your talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
"So he replaces them with 'Trump style yes men'."
Name one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, in a real sense the models appear to be "underblown" in terms of death. The USA (if you take into account the deaths which are currently being hidden in care homes and people who never get tested) is going towards 200k people dead despite having done a partial lockdown. More if you account for the effects of people being scared of going to hospital. In some situations in the models actual number of deaths predicted was much higher but that was based on a much higher infection rate (around 60%-80% of p
Re: (Score:2)
What a lie looks like. [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's what I said. You're both lying.
All very well stating it; Let's be clear WHO
China has not yet shown human-human transmission
Trump boosters try to claim
Human to human transmission has been disproven
At the level of raw stupidity where they hope to get people to believe them it's a very basic failure to understand that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. This is the level of contempt that they have for their potential supporters.
Note that the actual tweet is even more careful than I state it:
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China Flag of China
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, just say Trump. Do you think he's Lord Voldemort or something that you can't say his name.
Re: (Score:3)
this isn't just us being unprepared
It sounds more like being over-prepared. We ended up have excess emergency capacity that went unused but would have been invaluable if the pandemic had been worse.
RTFS (Score:2)
It wasn't that they weren't needed, it's that we didn't use them because there was no system in p
Re:RTFS (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't that they weren't needed, it's that we didn't use them because there was no system in place to use them.
That is what the unnamed "experts" supposedly said. But the governors are saying the opposite.
If they were needed, but unused, then please provide some links to all the stories about patients being turned away from other hospitals.
The reason, and the only reason, they went unused is because the capacity was not needed.
Chaos and confusion reigned on the ground because we lacked effective top down leadership.
Right. Because all American healthcare professionals are trained to just panic and run around in circles unless they receive personal detailed instructions from the president.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a HUGE variation in cost per bed in that linked article. 250 beds for just under $11 million. Or 1,900 beds for just over $11 million?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it, the models used to justify shutting down the entire globe have been catastrophically wrong. There was always a possibility of that and I don't disagree with the lockdown given the available info at the time, but surely you can at least admit that we were incorrectly assured an order of magnitude more deaths by now even with the drastic measures taken.
It is OK to admit that such models and predictions were wrong, so why won't you or any other Leftist? Could it be that by admitting the acad
Re:Well let's see, random /. poster (Score:5, Interesting)
How were the models wrong? We seem to be in the middle range of projections. Even with the shutdown we've only leveled off... there are still thousands of deaths a day. We're currently at 6 9-11's a week.
Re: (Score:3)
we were told that if the US implemented lockdowns and practiced social distancing, we would suffer merely 2 million deaths
Are you lying on purpose or just unable to read? From your own link:
"In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US,"
That study you hold up as incorrect, well the UK seems to be trending to hit smack bang the middle of the CI_HQ_SD.
Go read the actual studies you cited (Score:3)
In short, Americans and the Swedes were more responsible than people expected, and that saved lives.
The problem is our ruling class doesn't like that, because even a self imposed lock down means they're going to have to pay unemployment benefits, which bites into profits.
Again, I'm not going near a restaurant or doing any trave
Re: (Score:3)
You are lying or can't read. You say the model said 2 million deaths was the best case result. What it actually says:
"In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour"
Go read your own source again. That's exactly what I recall from the reporting at the time. 2 million if we did nothing, 100-200k if we did lockdown and that's exactly what is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out the model used by the UK and the US to justify lock down is literally complete gibberish code that does not output repeatable results if given the same inputs. Dr. Neil Ferguson wrote it. He was supposedly the best of the best.
Here's a review of the source code that was just forced to be released publicly: https://lockdownsceptics.org/c... [lockdownsceptics.org]
These are the "credentialed experts" we were supposed to believe without question. Well not any more.
Re:I'm just going to say it (Score:5, Insightful)
Check out the graph of deaths in New York [imgur.com]. It's very obvious where social distancing started to have an effect, and to people who understand exponential growth, it's obvious what would have happened if we did nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out distancing and lockdowns had no effect [twitter.com] on the spread of the virus.
He found a correlation, and it's interesting but the correlation isn't enough to draw that conclusion.* There is a ton of data now showing that the lockdown worked.
*To be specific, he found a correlation between deaths before lockdown and deaths after lockdown.
Seatbelts, fire alarms aren't dumb (Score:2)
Neither my seatbelt, not my fire extinguisher, nor even my smoke alarms were necessary this month - they went unused. I don't think it wws a mistake to have them in place in case they were needed.
As Phantomfive said:
--
The infection rate was doubling every 1 to 3 days before we went into lockdown. Another week of doubling like that, and these field hospitals would have been overflowing.
--
I haven't double checked the doubling rate, but certainly given the information available at the time, it looked like the
This is an example of things done right. (Score:2)
These are the things you do when you don't know what is going to happen. You listen to the experts and put things in place to deal with the worst case. As it was, two or three weeks ago, the public listened to the experts, took notice, isolated, and so the worst case didn't happen.
But in the last week, that seems to have gone to pot, so those field hospitals had better be ready to stand back up again in a week or two's time!
Re: (Score:2)
The "experts" were catastrophically wrong in their predictions used to convince the public to go along though. We were told the death count would be much higher than it is today even with a lockdown and other precautions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually, I think the fact we didn't need the field hospitals in the end is one small success.
And getting them set up quickly was a success, the armed forces, both national and of the States, performed their duties well during the crisis. It was a comfort knowing they were at the ready to treat me if I couldn't get into a hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
This experience should have taught you that experts can be just as self-serving and duplicitous as anyone. I'll listen to them over a guy going with his gut. After all, we all have guts. What makes their ignorance and prejudices any better than mine? But I should have been more careful about spreading the idea that wearing masks was harmful. That turned out to be a well intentioned lie at our expense, but a lie it remains.
It's about 10 times more leathal than flu (Score:5, Insightful)
And we lost 70,000 people in America with a lock down in effect.
I wouldn't call that an over reaction. We under reacted. We didn't prepare, didn't take it seriously, and we've lost people to it who didn't have to die.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually ... 78,503 tonight. And that's ignoring those who die before they can be tested.
Round 2 is coming before this summer. This is exponential. The outbreak only went sideways while we had the quarantine (because our quarantine's sucked as expected).
Even at this rate it was only down to doubling every 21 days instead of every 5 days.
https://aatishb.com/covidtrend... [aatishb.com]
Well at least Trump can finally say (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
His personal valet just tested positive. Pence's press secretary tested positive. The President and Vice President haven't even been isolating from each other.
He most likely is taking ACE inhibitors or an ARB.
He might make more history before election day.
Who would win in the unexpected election matchup: incumbent President Nancy Pelosi vs former Vice President Joe Biden?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.npr.org/sections/c... [npr.org]
"New York City officials will begin to count suspected COVID-19 deaths in addition to cases confirmed by a laboratory, following a WNYC/Gothamist report revealing a staggering increase in the number of people dying at home but not included in the official tally because they hadn't been tested for the novel coronavirus."
Re:It's about 10 times more leathal than flu (Score:4, Informative)
78k dead is like in 2-3 months, not a year, and I think the max the flu has killed is ~60k for an entire year. Just simple multiplication indicates that the coronavirus death toll could be upwards of 200k+ for a single year.
And how can you compare it to a heart conditions? You can't catch a heart condition!
I think the broader issue is that unless we did China-style censorship on the entire world press, the problem we're dealing with is a pandemic, not just the effects of the virus. A pandemic has all kinds of side effects in the public consciousness and the media, and the number of sick people and the effects in some places like Italy and Spain are severe enough that we would always have reactions that hurt public events. Plus even without lockdowns, there would have been public events that would have made for more high profile infection outbreaks which would have just accelerated public paranoia.
A pandemic is bigger than the infectious agent and includes a bunch of social and public consciousness side effects that are impossible to ignore or control even if you play down the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but we learned how to sew masks. I used cotton batting for a non-woven layer.
And we had to think about things. We all came out better from some introspection, I trust?
We had time for certain hobbies that we always wanted to do but they just kept ending up 2nd.
We're gonna lose a lot more before the end, keep your chin up and eat your vegetables.
Re:I'm just going to say it (Score:5, Informative)
The sum total cost of all uneccessary field hospitals is $600M... So what?
Congress blew $2 Trillion dollars out the door last week, and then within days of the President signing that bill, politicians are lining up to spend even more Trillions.
For perspective, $600M is 0.03% of a $1TN bill. That falls deep, deep into the realm of nothing more than a rounding error on a rounding error.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese shutdown all domestic air travel to stop the spread of the virus out of Wuhan, but saw no need to shutdown international travel out of Wuhan to anywhere outside of China. I kind think that "oversight" did a lot more to facilitate the spread of the virus than a couple coy Chinese officials telling half-truths about the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, how about you just try to imagine the global outcry if the Chinese stopped foreigners from fleeing China to escape from a deadly pandemic??
Seriously?
The Chinese warned the world and left it up to each nation to enact their own screening of travellers arriving from China. If those receiving nations chose not to screen or quarantine people arriving from China that's on those nations, not on China!
Some nations did quarantine arrivals from China.
Others didn't.
The results (aka death tolls) are now presente
Re: I'm just going to say it (Score:2)
No, that would be a different field of expertise, stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a code review of Dr. Ferguson's garbage model: https://lockdownsceptics.org/c... [lockdownsceptics.org]
Isolation works nicely. (Score:5, Interesting)
Outside New York and a couple other places, ~97% of folks were able to avoid obvious infection through their own isolation efforts so far.
But having 97% of the populace basically still vulnerable means there's also still next to no group immunity - and the virus is still VERY quick to spread when groups gather.
So - yes, we haven't needed extraordinary amounts of medical facilities yet on average.
Part of that is that most medical folks also report that many, many people are avoiding medical appointments, and many elective surgeries have been pushed out.
So - there's extra net capacity for now.
Even if states 'open' up though - I think most people will quite reasonably keep maximally isolating until a vaccine is present.
Which is why most economic plans for REALLY re-openning are going to fall very flat for now - that 97+% that haven't had the disease just aren't going to go back to normal - and those folks that do, are going to spread it to their relatives and then you're going to have another wave of shutdowns.
You're not going to rebuild the 'normal' economy very efficiently that way. You need a plan for doing that safely to meet the real-world psychology of the scenario.
That, or you need a working vaccine that can be mass-produced in time.
None of this is news though - but folks don't like the idea of sacrificing stock market numbers, so they'll interpret everything using whatever kind of magical thinking they have to insist that everyone else go back to work, or else be punished.
Which is exactly why we'll see the most desperate pushed to work or starve before too long - and the many layers of backlash for that.
I wish we didn't always have to go that route each time- but that's what America is now.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Isolation works nicely. (Score:5, Interesting)
We do know from the number of cases we've had that the U.S. didn't do a particularly good job of containing the spread of the virus so it's practically impossible for us to simultaneously see a higher rate of serious cases requiring hospitalization as we have while also failing to have at least a similar percentage of the population getting it while remaining asymptomatic. Maybe you could explain part of the U.S. numbers away due to a higher rate of obesity which among other factors has been co-morbid with hospitalization, but we don't have 97% of the population still vulnerable.
While this is serious, it's not going to bring about the end of the world. Sweden did very little in terms of official response and while they have higher rates of serious cases than neighboring countries, their healthcare system hasn't been overrun or brought to its knees. Maybe if it were some other country like China or North Korea you could accuse them of covering some of it up or trying to hide it, but I think you'd have a much harder time convincing people of the Swedish government doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
You are only assuming the 3% of people who recovered/would recover from Covid-19 have immunity against it.
The fact is no one knows yet how effective their immunity is or how long it lasts, or how it would fare against any mutations of the virus. It is possible that 6 months down the road we find out recovered patients no longer have immunity, then what do you do?
The same with vaccine, what if it is not effective enough or do not last long enough?
Counting on herd immunity or vaccine to save the country from
Re: (Score:2)
I would point out that the point of isolation is NOT to prevent people from getting sick.
Instead, the point is to flatten the curve. You can't avoid this disease forever unless you become bubble boy.
But if we isolate, then we will spread out the infection, 10% now, 10% next month, 10% the month after, instead of all 30% NOW.
Once the hospitilazations start going down, we can stop isolating. But until then it is a bad idea to stop the isolation.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the summary? The gist is, we planned for a huge overflow of patients that never happened. Not even in NYC. Even states that did not have any kind of lockdown, didn't have hospitals overflowing with patients. In fact, hospitals everywhere have been laying off medical staff because they weren't needed!
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of "shelter at home" was to flatten the curve so that healthcare providers wouldn't be overwhelmed... That was until the President decided we needed to start bringing the economy back, then his critics sensed political points could be scored by moving the goal posts and now declaring that the point of "shelter at home" was to try and protect every American, opening the economy prematurely might cost some lives, and that was unacceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
If isolation is the thing that prevented these field hospitals from being needed, then we would expect to see them NEEDED in places that did not lock down.
Can you point to a single place like this? Sweden perhaps?
Several states never locked down. Even they did not need the field hospitals.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not going to rebuild the 'normal' economy very efficiently that way. You need a plan for doing that safely to meet the real-world psychology of the scenario.
Not psychology, epidemiology. Specifically, to do it you need to move from general quarantine to targeted quarantine. Massive, widespread testing plus an army of contact tracers who identify and test the contacts of everyone who tested positive. Then quarantine all of the positives. Diseases spread via infection clusters. If you can find and test and isolate contacts quickly enough you might be able to kill clusters, but at the very least you'll be able to dramatically slow the rate of the spread. Very
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths are concentrated among the old and sick. The most logical course of action is to isolate them. Let everyone else loose.
But that doesn't advance the dystopian authoritarian agenda to remove civil rights and personal liberty. Comments like that are likely to harm your social credit score, Comrade.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Just leaving them all to fend for themselves seems pretty dystopic to me.
Neither does isolation and lockdowns (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's simply not true. There's at least one commercially available [merck-anim...th-usa.com] for bovine coronavirus, and that vaccine has been around for a while. It doesn't provide long-lasting immunity, but it is effective for a year or so, IIRC, which is presumably long enough to eradicate it from your herd (at least until new cattle bring it back in).
Maybe you were thinking of rhinovir
Re: (Score:2)
It's not practical to fully isolate any group of people without requiring them to also be 100% self-sufficient. Until a vaccine exists, everyone has to play their part.
And, like the flu, this one will also likely need yearly vaccination updates to match the evolution rate of the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A vaccine is by far the best outcome even if sometimes the virus evolves at bad timing.
Even with a good vaccine, there's still going to be some loses. As has been pointed out, it's not the same as Polio and the others that don't have a rapid evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
And, like the flu, this one will also likely need yearly vaccination updates to match the evolution rate of the virus.
Not just to match evolution. There's evidence that the immunity granted by recovering from SARS and MERS is temporary -- only 2-4 years. This isn't because the viruses are mutating, it's because some viruses just don't seem to trigger long memory in the memory T and memory B cells. It seems entirely possible that SARS-CoV-2 is the same.
OTOH, it's also likely that it will mutate much more slowly than influenza, for structural reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, that's where the bribe money is! (Score:2)
Maybe local governments shouldn't be forcing hospitals to get on bended knee as in a communist nation to beg for permission to expand the numbers of beds.
It wouldn't solve the whole problem but certainly exposes the dangers and arrogancy of central planning, which is to say, planning by highly fallible mortals with an eye towards politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, site a source where private hospitals are being forced to not open more beds.
Professor of Drama (Score:2)
> "It's so painful because what it's showing is that the plans we have in place, they don't work,"
The only thing painful is the thought that a professor of health believes one could come up with a plan to defeat all pandemics... These field hospitals may well have helped under other circumstances, but there sure is no god-given guarantee that even the best planning always leads to success. That these field hospitals didn't work out now doesn't make it bad. It only shows one simply cannot prepare for all
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, thank all the gods above, below and non-existent that they weren't needed because even though there were beds there wasn't the equipment necessary to handle that many additional critically ill.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit of a misleading headline (Score:2)
The field hospitals were specifically intended to treat OTHER patients - not infected with COVID-19 - to free up beds and wards at local hospitals so they could better deal with COVID-19 patients.
Re: (Score:2)
But sadly potential patients weighed their options and choose to not go to the hospital if at all possible - they didn't want to go to the Covid-19 center of their city and risk contracting the virus. How many cancer patients missed their treatments because of such fears? On statistic I heard was that one Big Pharma company saw orders of their cancer treatments drop by 20-25% since the "shelter in home" orders went out - that is bad, cancer patients refusing needed treatments...
It's good we didn't need them (yet) (Score:2)
The predicted need for hospital beds probably came from the experience in other countries. Who knows what happened in China -- but I'm assuming it wasn't a total disaster because they have much greater control over their population than we do and could very severely crack down where needed. Europe seems to have been unlucky and had a few very active sources of infection that really kicked things off, combined with not shutting things down soon enough. The US could have been in much worse shape by now had no
Let the army do its job and get the fuck out of it (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's how you can fix it:
1. Get every politician involved.
2. Put him to a firing squad and let them go to work.
Now that every disruptive element is out of the picture, you can do some serious business.
If you let the military do politics, it's called a junta. If you let politicians run military operations, it's called the Vietnam War. We're allowed to learn from history, ya know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, what I'm trying to say is that everyone should do what they're supposed to do and stay the fuck out of the other guy's job.
Root cause needed (Score:2)
These hospitals were built based on bad models that were obviously not based on realistic or feasible inputs.
When the pandemic is settled out we need to perform a root cause on why the models failed as badly as they did. Pretty much every model got things wrong anywhere from significantly to an order of magnitude. None of the models even got things in the same ballpark as our real world results.
Public policy decisions that significantly impacted society as a whole were made based on bad models. Businesses w
Re: (Score:2)
When the pandemic is settled out we need to perform a root cause on why the models failed as badly as they did.
It's because there were too many unknowns (or measurements with large error) in the inputs. Even today, we don't know how many people have actually been infected. 5:38 did a good analysis of the situation [fivethirtyeight.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting article on 538. I really have to wonder why all of the models came in much higher than real world results? This bothers me greatly. If the models were done in a neutral manner some of them should have come in lower. I am not aware of a single model that came in lower than real world results.
Science needs to understand what went wrong with the models before the next pandemic that breaks out. Science also needs to be better at filtering out political influence that may have swayed the results. The
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting article on 538. I really have to wonder why all of the models came in much higher than real world results?
What are you citing here? Why do you think that?
Re: (Score:2)
Utterly impossible for infection prediction, each virus is different. You don't know what you're going to get until pandora's box is opened each time.
And this thing isn't over yet, we may have only delayed the inevitable 70% of populace infected and the percent dead from that.
Re: (Score:2)
The Left is more afraid the overwhelming failure of the COVID models might lead people to doubt the climate doom models produced by these same academics and realize there might be a pattern to this incompetence.
Large scale Training exercise (Score:5, Insightful)
From the military and disaster management point of view, it was a training exercise. And like any training exercise, the review will identify things that worked, and things that didn't.
For instance, The Navy's hospital ships are nearly useless for epidemics due to the inadequacies in the ventilation system. It might be time to replace them. They were converted from oil tankers. Maybe new ones can be built from cruise ship hulls. There should be surplus capacity in those shipyards for quite awhile.
Re: (Score:3)
How the US' Hospital Ships Work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pNBAxx4IRo [youtube.com]
For the Army engineers... (Score:3)
this was an excellent exercise and it may well pay off in huge dividends in some future disaster.
The corps, confronted with this sudden demand to build temporary hospitals, designed several highly-modular concepts that could be made from interchangeable parts and setup quickly in any of several categories [army.mil] of large buildings, like sports arenas, convention halls, old de-commissioned hospitals, etc. These "hospitals" looked like little more than many curtained cubicles inside large spaces, but actually includ
Why are we talking about this like it's over? (Score:5, Interesting)
On May 1, the United States had 903714 active cases (total cases minus deaths and recoveries). On May 8, it had 1,019,567 active cases.
No state has fewer active cases than it did a week ago except Hawaii, Montana and Texas. Texas was a one day reporting blip on May 1; if you take a three day moving average the number of ative cases is showing consistent growth. I expect that New York and New Jersey will show a statistically significant decline in active cases very soon, but nobody should be declaring victory yet.
Re: (Score:2)
not actually true (Score:3)
In nearly every war, disease has killed more people than actual combat has. The Pentagon is aware of this, as is the Navy. The Navy's hospital ships are suited to deal with most illnesses that might afflict US Marines deployed into a combat area anywhere on Earth. COVID-19 is a very odd duck, however, in that infected people can be contagious yet asymptomatic for as many as ten days - which is not something these ships were designed for just as most other medical facilities are not.
Under most circumstances,
Re: Large scale Training exercise (Score:2)
Is "wuflu" the new "Sjw", as in vacuous troll identifier?
Re: Large scale Training exercise (Score:2)
Of course not!
It's spelled with a capital W and all caps for SJW.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would not - every question you asked is answered in the negative. Shared ventilation, no food prep, etc.
If each patient is in their own room behind a solid door, nurses will spend all their time running in and out of every room all day long. Also, no reasonable provision for central monitoring of patients, nothing but small rooms and long corridors.
Besides, cruise ships have very limited ingress/egress points, imagine a hospital with only three doors for entry/exit.
As an outsider looking in... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Business opportunity? The miltary and national guard, along with charities built the field hospitals - not private contractors.
Looks like somebody didn't get thier numbers right (Score:2)
What use are the WHO (with their 3% to 5% mortality rate reported in march) and the Imperial college of London (reporting 3 million deaths in the USA at one point) if they can't accurately predict what we give them money to predict? I didn't take a braniac to look at the cruse ships and do some simple math and put bounds on the mortality rate. If you don't know what the numbers are then don't advise people or write papers. I'm not sure anyone on the planet at this time even understands what the true spread
Looks like somebody .. (Score:3)
Please take a break, read more, read deeper, and more than the headlines, please:
Projections are based on a scenario, if the scenario changes the projection changes. Also the U.S. are currently within the pandemic, meaning the death toll will still rise and those projected numbers are mostly totals.
Keep in mind media mostly fails to interpret projections correctly, because they have the same understanding on those numbers as you, those are projections and the big, fat, red warning must be "scenario outcome,
Pandemic, isn't over, shit heads (Score:4, Interesting)
Shutting them down now is idiotic. We don't know for a fact what the next wave will look like.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the brilliant satire.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me shake my head too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you get rich by ruining your economy.
Sometimes I wonder how those conspiracy groups are supposed to run the world government, they don't seem any more capable than the governments we already have.
Re: (Score:2)
When your country forces you to go out and work when this is clearly against the interest of the general population because it prolongs and worsens the crisis, you ahve bigger problems in your country than the bills you have to pay.
It turns out it really is just a Hoax (Score:2)
Please update your dictionaries accordingly, or deposit them in the nearest memory hole.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you use that word "theory" without actually understanding what it means. But judging from what you posted there, this is the least of your problem when it comes to understanding anything.
Re: (Score:2)
What went wrong was that the media has promised us for decades the US sucks and the US healthcare sucks and that private businesses suck and big corporations suck.
You can add "government" to that list.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that saved everyone was the lockdowns slowing the spread. And that's the part people like you keep complaining about and want to reverse. It's sheer idiocy.
No, we think it's served its purpose, you obvioulsy feel otherwise. Please tell me what is your trigger to start re-opening the US economy, and putting 30 million Americans back to work? Let me guess - a vaccine. We simply can't re-open the economy without a vaccine in-hand. So what if it takes 18-24 months to develop and test a vaccine? Lives are more important than money!