They give you a percentage because it doesn't matter if they have only 9 or 300, if they are full they don't have room for you.
Does it not concern you that hospitals are filling up with these 1%ers and medical treatment for non-covid or new covid patients simply will NOT be available to you and your family?
Yes but if a hospital has 100 beds and they constantly have 65 people in them. I don’t think 20 more sick/injured people should cause my sister to have to close her business for a third time.
M
member 3289
Guest
Secrecy and spin: How Florida’s governor misled the public on the COVID-19 pandemic
Throughout the COVID-19 crisis in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration engaged in a pattern of spin and concealment that misled the public on the gravest health threat the state has eve…
www.sun-sentinel.com
If you can't open thee above link:
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Hospitals run at 85% or more capacity on a normal basis. They're supposed to leave that much capacity because they're a regular ebbs and flows that create spikes forcing bed crisis and emergency transfers.
I've posted about this in the last week.
We have a lot of ICU beds but few hospital beds as a country. We run above that 85% on a regular basis Even though they were really not supposed to. Hospitals are interested in profit and run to the thin edge. When everybody gets sick at the same time so you lose your transfer centers.
So to buy back 10 to 20% of bed capacity you start canceling elective surgeries for everybody.
After that regular medical cases will start getting competition against coronavirus cases. You get the heart attack and pneumonia patient sitting in the emergency department for 2 to 3 days. Sitting in hallways with a nurse doing mine patients when they're supposed to be doing six or less. This is third world country care for all of those people.
We canceled our elective surgeries almost 2 weeks ago. That's not due to a mandate. That's economics of medicine happening in which we don't have the ability to take care of people. There is no law forcing this.
That's bed utilization which is already starting to be stretched thin.
There are now nationwide staffing shortages because everybody is sick at the same time. it doesn't matter that I start funding new hospital beds with money that isn't there right now. So money can't fix the problem if you don't have the staff to handle those beds.
It does not matter what you think principally or anything else about the percentage of the population that's at risk for this virus. If you all get sick at once you overwhelm the system. And the system is a finite resource worsened by the fact that our leaders have failed to make that system more robust over the last 6+ months.
I agree with things like the above that outdoor dining is a relatively low risk activity. Same with to-go. This is the stuff I've been talking about trading out for since the spring. This is the compromise on how you keep cases moving slowly. disingenuous arguments about perfection ignore that the only goal is to slow things down long enough to not kill too many people and get better treatments and vaccines. It's never been about stopping only slowing. There is bad messaging from the leaders. And because we have continued large groups meeting in super spreader events and schizophrenic leadership passing the buck down to the cities and employers, undermining a unified direction, You're basically going to get locked down piecemeal. It's completely avoidable.
So back to your example. If a hospital is only using 65 of their 100 beds, the next thing is prediction a future bed need. The seeds of Thanksgiving are already laid. You don't start making changes when the beds are full. You have to predict them two to four weeks out.
If If you're only at 65% bed capacity I would agree with you. But not if you're seeing 100,000 cases one day and 200,000 cases three days later and 400,000 cases 3 days after that. That's the problem with exponential numbers. They are very slow going 1 to 2 to 4 but they double at the same pace at these large numbers.
If a hospital jumps from 65% to 85% utilization as in your example, they are now full by industry standards. That buffer 15% will accidentally fill up with ebbs and flows and be 100% sometimes If you only hold at 85%. Such a jump in your case number represents a 30% increase in hospital staffing needs. And any increase beyond it would require canceling elective procedures. If you see a Thanksgiving case bomb laid and you're at 85%, you will have overruns before the month is out.
M
member 3289
Guest
Zero chance this is true. Stop being a fucking retard.
why do you think so little is being said about Ivermectin?
it seems like a perfect stop-gap measure to minimize the impact of the infections and lower infectivity
This is probably a question you don't have an answer for, but any idea why care capacity hasn't been upped? It seems that we're getting well past the point of "There's no time for that!"
I never said it was a hoax
but I’ve always said the government shouldn’t shut down peoples lives.
2 weeks has turned into 9 months.
@Splinty tells me that hospitals run at 85%, which I believe and have actually quoted to friends.
Now tell me how not to be frustrated when the governor is gonna shut down all of southern California when we hit 85.000000000000000000001%.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
@@Splinty tells me that hospitals run at 85%, which I believe and have actually quoted to friends.
Now tell me how not to be frustrated when the governor is gonna shut down all of southern California when we hit 85.000000000000000000001%.
I don't know what you guys are doing day to day. I do know that you have a hypocrite governor that's over there having large group gatherings while telling everybody else not to which undermines faith in the system.
I know that you guys are suffering because the federal government kicked this to the governor's instead of must bring a national level response. so don't just take it out on your states and realize that this is a federal failure. With things like staffing shortages, you could have let things be a little bit more ebb and flow and loose because you can muster national resources to bolster regional needs.
Ideally, he would have transparent data driven metrics and stages and this would not be just on a whim as a state. Again California is a bit unique because of Kaiser. But for most states hospital allocations and public funds are done by the county hospital districts. That's such an ideal situation would also involve granular restrictions down to the county levels. There's likely zero reason for the same restrictions in Eastern California as LA county. So not sure if you guys are all getting caught because the larger urban centers have their own unique needs due to densities.
M
member 3289
Guest
24,000 new cases in California today. That's 10,000 more than the daily record for new cases in any one other state.
I understand that you guys have 40,000,000 people, but until mid to late November you were more or less on par with Texas, despite having 1.5x Texas's population.
Do you really think the difference is 0.00000000000000000000000000001%?
M
member 3289
Guest
I'm honestly surprised it took so long for California to see numbers like this.
Forty million people, idk how they avoided such a massive outbreak for so long.
Forty million people, idk how they avoided such a massive outbreak for so long.
How many of these are positive for the flu?
None, the flu doesn’t exist anymore
None, the flu doesn’t exist anymore
oh no
nobody needs to stick up for california leadership and shift any blame from them
that just aint right
nobody needs to stick up for california leadership and shift any blame from them
that just aint right
No way Southern California could have been divided up into more regions to punish the ones spreading the virus. It’s not just East and west LA @Splinty Towns in San Diego with barely any cases get shutdown because 3 hours away people are not responsible.
Because we followed the instructions that told us would flatten the curve.
we didn’t agree to permanent lockdown until the disease disappears.
We're going through a similar thing here. It really sucks.It’s not just East and west LA @@Splinty Towns in San Diego with barely any cases get shutdown because 3 hours away people are not responsible.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I didn't strutterIt’s not just East and west LA @@Splinty
See above.
That's what I'm talking about. You shouldn't do that. Not granular enough. Should likely be down to county level. but if that can't be done because of Kaiser and the way that the hospital transfers are distributed, then you do it down to some sort of hospital districts to represent the resources in that area and where patients are sent to when you have overflows.
it's a headcount issue, and you can't kick doctors and nurses out of an assembly line like you can masks.
don't get me started on the AMA and the artificial shortage of doctors....
The entire west coast is doing blanket shutdowns from the beginning
Makes zero sense
Total overreach and tyranny
You can, for lack of better term, re-purpose doctors and nurses for the current situation. It's also worth noting that for a lot of what's required it doesn't need to be doctors and nurses per se. Teaching people to be reasonably proficient in specifically handling covid patients is a fairly narrow scope as far as being a medical practitioner goes.