Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Martin Alvito]

Interesting, if true, that the new variant is causing less severe disease as South Africa claims. That's the general trend line for infectious diseases over time (eg: syphillis, influenza), but that's unfolded over decades or centuries historically.

Even with the high mutation rate of a coronavirus, I'd expect this to take a while to settle out based on the history, with some other highly dangerous variants along the way.

.... and again, you are doing to the 90 year old what you claim to be horrified about doing to the 27 year old.

All he's saying is that is how triage works. When a hospital has to make hard choices, that's how they make them in practice.

 

[CharliePotato]

.... and again, you are doing to the 90 year old what you claim to be horrified about doing to the 27 year old.

What he’s saying is right though.

It’s the same for any mass casualty situation where they have no other choice, for example in war zones or major incidents.

Who do they try and save first, the worst injured or the most likely to survive, if resources are slim they have to make the hard choice.

In mass casualty situations they even have tagging systems which they use on the bodies to determine likely survivability.

And that’s a fact, not an opinion.

 

[CharliePotato]

Medical Triage... the order in which care is given is of utmost importance.. if there is one ICU bed available and the options are a 90 year old smoker who's vaccinated and a 27 year old unvaccinated......there is no hospital in the world giving the bed to the 90 year old..

Exactly.

 

[BlueToff]

Tbf to @tsubaki , a 90-year-old is likely to have more chance of needing a ventilator to survive over a 27-year-old, 9 times out of 10.

But I don't suppose decisions in medical settings work like that and, in real life, two people don't have exactly the same rates of survival so you'd go with the person who is more likely to survive. That's just how it works. Doesn't mean the system is evil, it must be a horrendous choice to make.

 

[tsubaki]

Medical Triage... the order in which care is given is of utmost importance.. if there is one ICU bed available and the options are a 90 year old smoker who's vaccinated and a 27 year old unvaccinated......there is no hospital in the world giving the bed to the 90 year old..

What he’s saying is right though.

It’s the same for any mass casualty situation where they have no other choice, for example in war zones or major incidents.

Who do they try and save first, the worst injured or the most likely to survive, if resources are slim they have to make the hard choice.

In mass casualty situations they even have tagging systems which they use on the bodies to determine likely survivability.

And that’s a fact, not an opinion.

All he's saying is that is how triage works. When a hospital has to make hard choices, that's how they make them in practice.

Triage is a fact, absolutely. I'd strongly question the idea though that, all things (condition, current symptoms etc) being equal, a person in their 20s would get a higher priority than a 90 year old would for this. I mean we've all seen the death rate for those in their 90s vs those in their 20s.

 

[BlueToff]

Does anyone not know someone who has either died or lost someone from this? Genuinely curious - without really thinking about it I know of at least three people (two at work, one the dad of someone I went to school with). I also know a few more people with long COVID.

My dad's cousin in May 2020. 60s, healthy, was a real shock - though he did have a heart operation that nearly killed him in 2018 so he was 'compromised'.

My mate's granddad, who was early 80s and had had pneumonia in 2019, in October 2020.

Nobody else, I've got long COVID or had long COVID as per the doctor, but I've not changed my lifestyle since finding that out, it just knackered me with exercise, like a less talented, but possibly more tactically aware Ben Godfrey.

 

[tsubaki]

Tbf to @tsubaki , a 90-year-old is likely to have more chance of needing a ventilator to survive over a 27-year-old, 9 times out of 10.

But I don't suppose decisions in medical settings work like that and, in real life, two people don't have exactly the same rates of survival so you'd go with the person who is more likely to survive. That's just how it works. Doesn't mean the system is evil, it must be a horrendous choice to make.

Indeed, but if this little discussion has shown anything it is how upset people get when the "wrong" choice is made.

 

[BlueToff]

Triage is a fact, absolutely. I'd strongly question the idea though that, all things (condition, current symptoms etc) being equal, a person in their 20s would get a higher priority than a 90 year old would for this. I mean we've all seen the death rate for those in their 90s vs those in their 20s.

yeah it's a fair point, all depends.

If they both definitely needed the ventilator to live, then it'd go to the 27-yr-old.

If they might need the ventilator to live then I guess, barring extreme circumstances like the 27-yr-old having a serious breathing condition or whatever, the 90-yr-old should, in theory, get it. Whether they would in practice, who can know.

 

[BlueToff]

Indeed, but if this little discussion has shown anything it is how upset people get when the "wrong" choice is made.

Yeah I mean I don't disagree with you. The situation is unlikely because it's not gonna be so cut and dry. All things will very unlikely be equal with their respective health. If they were, the younger person would, I assume, get priority

 

[Tipp blue]

Triage is a fact, absolutely. I'd strongly question the idea though that, all things (condition, current symptoms etc) being equal, a person in their 20s would get a higher priority than a 90 year old would for this. I mean we've all seen the death rate for those in their 90s vs those in their 20s.

It has to be taken on individual basis not how other prople of the same age got on.. you can't not give a bed to the 27 year old because other 27 year olds didn't have serious outcomes.
If both are deemed in need of ICU and you can only care for 1..

 

[tsubaki]

yeah it's a fair point, all depends.

If they both definitely needed the ventilator to live, then it'd go to the 27-yr-old.

If they might need the ventilator to live then I guess, barring extreme circumstances like the 27-yr-old having a serious breathing condition or whatever, the 90-yr-old should, in theory, get it. Whether they would in practice, who can know.

I'd go the other way and give it to the 90 year old, who whilst they might have smoked 70 years they at least have the excuse that the knowledge about how bad that was for people wasn't widely known for a lot of that time. Plus of course their lungs are probably going to be a lot less capable than the 27 year old, who is also probably going to be able to survive without intervention for longer.

 

[tsubaki]

It has to be taken on individual basis not how other prople of the same age got on.. you can't not give a bed to the 27 year old because other 27 year olds didn't have serious outcomes.
If both are deemed in need of ICU and you can only care for 1..

No-one is saying this wouldn't be a difficult decision - but it is kind of mad how a difficult question like that, based on all manner of medical assessments not represented in this hypothetical example, has ended up with an an answer that people have deemed obviously wrong apparently based solely on the person's age.

 

[Neiler]

 

[Neiler]

 

[Neiler]