[SpicyLemonZest]

I definitely want to know. But it seems like Swedish public policy is that the current measures are the strictest sustainable ones, so they're going to maintain them until strict measures are no longer needed. It's not clear that early visibility of a spike would change that.

[ashtonkem]

Given that mortality rate is closely tied to the availability of ventilators, it would be catastrophically short sighted to not react to a spike with strong, short term measures.

[CydeWeys]

This turns out not to be the case. Ventilators don't actually help much with COVID-19. If you end up severe enough to not be able to breathe on your own you're likely to die, and the ventilator only prolongs it. So running out of ventilators won't actually cause many more deaths.

The way to prevent a lot of deaths is simply to prevent people from catching it at all.

[beerandt]

Most recent numbers I've seen are that if you go on a vent, you've got a 70% (San Fransisco) to 90% (New Orleans) chance of dying. Not great.

Anecdotal word from family members working in ERs is that none of them have been on a shift with a successful code run on a covid patient. CPR is low single digits 30-day survival based on Chinese numbers released this week. It was something like (1) patient survived out of 37 attempts.

The question of if the 10-30% of vent survivors would have survived without a vent is fair, but that's a maximum efficacy at this point.

Vents are definitely not the answer everyone thought they would be.

[vanniv]

Given the misery and problems associated with long-term ventilator usage, I'm not sure vents for covid is a good idea at all

[beerandt]

Yeah, I started to go there earlier, but stopped myself.

Doctors seem to be doing a better job of informing patients (or families) of those issues before intubating, especially if they have multiple risk factors, and a surprising number of cases have opted not to vent.

But also:

1) There are quite a few really sad stories of patients getting dropped at the ED curb by a spouse as if they'll get checked out and be right back out to go home, only to be immediately intubated and sedated, and ultimately dying without family by their side and no chance to say goodbyes.

They now make a lot of effort to make phone calls or video chats to family before intubating anyone, but it's still rough without anyone being able to be there, and then not being able to speak either. And it just adds to the weight of what the nurses have to deal with, emotionally.

2)There's also the murky topic of straining hospital resources. You obviously don't know ahead of time who the 10-30% of survivors will be and you want to save whoever you can, and hopefully we never get to the point of true rationing. But...

It's hard to be blind to the fact that it's a huge amount of risk, resources, and physical & emotional effort that are seeing relatively little success. I don't have an answer. Hopefully we get better at it.

[ashtonkem]

10-30% survival odds are much better than 0, and the negative consequences of being ventilated depends on the ventilator settings; more time is worse, but it also varies by the ventilator pressure.

Germany is seeing better results by ventilating earlier, FYI.

[vanniv]

Some of the folks on vents would have survived anyway. Probably fewer than survive with.

But I don't know, severe permanent lung damage guaranteed, delirium and dementia likely, and the misery of the treatment itself, all for a 1-in-5 chance of surviving (where survival is measured only at 30 days)?

I'm not saying nobody should be allowed to make that choice -- they should -- but I don't know that I would.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I guess I'm not sure what to say in response to that. Swedish officials simply don't agree that strong short term measures are required to ensure a sufficient number of ventilators.