[redis_mlc]

The data on the Santa Clara (California) stats site shows that 10% of those tested are infected.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/DiseaseInformation/novel-co...

What your comment is missing is that the mortality of ventilators is 66% - 90%. So they're not a good solution for most patients. ICU doctors have been recommending using non-intrusive methods like cannulas as long as possible before intubating. However, that causes aerosolization of corona, so quarantine buildings are needed.

Please see my links for more detailed info.

[alkonaut]

It doesn’t really matter if mortality in ICU’s is high so long as it’s much higher without ICU treatment. For young patients the mortality is very low exactly because they are likely to survive ICU care, while a 70 year old is unlikely to survive and an 80 year old is unlikely to be given ICU care to begin with.

If ICU mortality is extremely high (e.g over 2/3) then doctors probably need to be more selective. The judgement should be not only that patients should walk out, but also survive for a period after treatment, say a year. It’s also not only about ICU treatment, regular hospital beds and doctors are also not unlimited.

I think in many places doctors are feeling pressured to use invasive ventilation for patients that have a low chance of surviving a year after care. Patients who get invasive ventilation should be carefully selected even if there is no shortage. If mortality is very high, this is a signal that doctors are giving ICU care to too many patients that aren’t helped by it.

[alkonaut]

Early numbers from Sweden report 80% survival from ICU. Not all of those were on invasive ventilation, and there may be a bias where survivors are discharged sooner while those who eventually die are still there. But numbers are definitely encouraging says doctors.