|
|
|
|
|
|
by SAI_Peregrinus
2272 days ago
|
|
|
> First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount of deaths over a larger timespan. This is incorrect. You're reducing the number of deaths. Think of it like this: imagine 2% of people need ICU care. 100% of those that don't get ICU care die. 100% of those that do get ICU care live. ICU care takes a week. You can have everyone need ICU care all at once: everyone beyond the number of ICU beds will die, so 2% of the population dies. Or you can spread it out so that the number of people needing care at once is below the number of ICU beds, and no one dies. And since your second point depends on your (flawed) first, it's invalid too. |
|
|
Quoting my earlier reply: "According to the article, ICU capacity is currently at a quarter. They could probably "afford" a higher rate, and be done with it faster."
I'm obviously aware of that. Now we're just arguing how high the numbers are, but we agree that they exist. You're arguing Sweden will have numbers so high, they will be overwhelmed. I believe the infected number is significantly higher than measured, and we're about 1/3rds of peak, so Sweden, in my opinion, will peak at about 75% ICU capacity.
My second point still stands.
EDIT: Or, to apply reductio ad absurdum to your argument, if we go all the way and attempt to minimize that number to the extreme, we could be facing a lockdown lasting years and have ICU capacity barely scratch 1% above nominal (on the contrary - it would decrease, as reduced societal activity initially incurs less deaths/ICU cases from e.g. accidents).