nG!!nU~$(KGrHgoOKi8EjlLm(rUzBKcZn2z!7Q~~_7.JPG "*kazumi*"){kind=avatar}
The numbers and the graphs on how we are going and it seems to be on a downward trend for new cases so
hopefully we don't get to many new cases brought on by further idiocy and people that just wont listen.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/
@*kazumi* wrote:and why we need to flatten the curve
So the problem is hospitals from non-infected regions are not inclined to admit patients from hot-spots , not from here , not our problem.
@rogespeed wrote:
@go-tazz wrote:
@icyfroth wrote:
but it has a high recovery rate, and I do think placing the world in lockdown and destroying world economy is a total overreaction.
Not it hasn't.
The flu has a point 1% death rate this virus has over a 1% death rate so it kills ten times as many people
that get infected compared to the flu.
The reaction will show one way or the other depending on when it slows down or a vaccine is created but
action seems to be much better than no action which is what India seems to be doing.
Don't forget India's population is much younger and vigorous than ours and has been exposed to a much higher rate of disease than our Western countries, so it's only natural they're not panicked as much we ar
They've done nothing to slow it and it's starting to accelerate now and considering how close they seem to live
it could become a very big problem very quickly.
India has basically just started eg,March 14th compared to Aus who "started on Feb 29th:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/
To put it into perspective is if we had done nothing from the start and all of the population got infected then
1% of the population and the death toll could be up to 250.000 people.
No , would be much more as severe cases would surely die without hospital care
how many worldwide suffer the following and even with hospital care the % dying is
- 10.5% for people with cardiovascular disease
- 7.3% for people with diabetes
- 6.3% for people with chronic respiratory disease
- 6% for people with hypertension
- 5.6% for people with cancer
Imagine without hospital care , imagine the numbers infected without any mitigation
I was just trying to put a minimum figure across as to the severity of the virus when infected so that it was
easier to understand by some.
The virus at present is responsible for the death of 5.5% of infected cases world wide so if only 20% of the
Aussie population got infected the death rate would be over 250.000 people.
So the scenario of India and some other countries doing nothing could/would possibly wipe out millions of lives
because they didn't take it seriously.
@rogespeed wrote:
So the problem is hospitals from non-infected regions are not inclined to admit patients from hot-spots , not from here , not our problem.
The problem is the hot spots where there is a reason why they are one and no one wants that scenario to come
to their community,eg: their lack of community care.
Some communities don't have the resouces to handle outside cases especially something like this.
Why take a case to an area where there is none and then increase their chances of getting infections because
of the move.
What then happens if they start getting their own cases and now don't have the room to treat them.
Look at Italy and how their moving infected cases around worked out.
@go-tazz wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:
@go-tazz wrote:
@icyfroth wrote:
but it has a high recovery rate, and I do think placing the world in lockdown and destroying world economy is a total overreaction.
Not it hasn't.
The flu has a point 1% death rate this virus has over a 1% death rate so it kills ten times as many people
that get infected compared to the flu.
The reaction will show one way or the other depending on when it slows down or a vaccine is created but
action seems to be much better than no action which is what India seems to be doing.
Don't forget India's population is much younger and vigorous than ours and has been exposed to a much higher rate of disease than our Western countries, so it's only natural they're not panicked as much we ar
They've done nothing to slow it and it's starting to accelerate now and considering how close they seem to live
it could become a very big problem very quickly.
India has basically just started eg,March 14th compared to Aus who "started on Feb 29th:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/
To put it into perspective is if we had done nothing from the start and all of the population got infected then
1% of the population and the death toll could be up to 250.000 people.
No , would be much more as severe cases would surely die without hospital care
how many worldwide suffer the following and even with hospital care the % dying is
- 10.5% for people with cardiovascular disease
- 7.3% for people with diabetes
- 6.3% for people with chronic respiratory disease
- 6% for people with hypertension
- 5.6% for people with cancer
Imagine without hospital care , imagine the numbers infected without any mitigation
I was just trying to put a minimum figure across as to the severity of the virus when infected so that it was
easier to understand by some.
The virus at present is responsible for the death of 5.5% of infected cases world wide so if only 20% of the
Aussie population got infected the death rate would be over 250.000 people.
So the scenario of India and some other countries doing nothing could/would possibly wipe out millions of lives
because they didn't take it seriously.
The original post reply dealt with India seemingly leaving the virus to run it's course. This implies no particular medical intervention.
As such to me seems that casualties will be far higher but then again there is evidence of unknown factors that is enabling at this early stage of developing mass infection , a relatively good death/recovery rate which historically vastly improves over time
However the current observations over the last three months regarding highly industrialised countries strongly suggest that the death rate would be astronomical if no medical care was provided.
