Bolsonaro fires health minister, calls to reopen economy • Hacker News Board

Re: Bolsonaro fires health minister, calls to reopen economy

#121

Post by ashtonkem » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

vanniv wrote: post #114

beerandt wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

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.

Re: Bolsonaro fires health minister, calls to reopen economy

#122

Post by ashtonkem » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #77

ashtonkem wrote: post #37

Bolsonaro believes that he’s personally immune because he’s an “athlete”. Wish I was kidding.

Isn't that recover of viral diseases which we don't have vaccines for are a function of immune system's response?

Yes and no. As a sibling pointed out, for some viruses it’s your own immune system that kills you.

Also being athletic doesn’t really confer a magic boost to your immune system that overcomes age. It’s better than being obese and out of shape, but it isn’t going to magically restore your immune system to that of a 20 year old.

Also, having seen videos of Bolsonaro doing “push-ups”, I’d say that formerly athletic is closer to the mark.

Re: Bolsonaro fires health minister, calls to reopen economy

#123

Post by vanniv » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #121

vanniv wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: Bolsonaro fires health minister, calls to reopen economy

#124

Post by seppin » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #101

seppin wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't testing. I have 3 friends bedridden right now with COVID19 symptoms in Stockholm, all of which were denied a test after they asked for one. They were told to stay home and get over it. Their numbers aren't reflective of reality.

To be fair, that's a lot of places right now. I have a neighbour (Kitchener, Canada) who had all the symptoms and wasn't tested— all they wanted to hear is that her house had an area with a separate bathroom where she'd be able to isolate from the rest of her family. She recovered on her own without medical intervention.

True but I didn't say otherwise. Sweden is failing at the only thing that can begin to mount a successful response to COVID19 which is widespread testing.

Same as the US and Canada I suppose.

Re: Bolsonaro fires health minister, calls to reopen economy

#125

Post by seppin » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #87

seppin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That positive rate is far too low. If you get < 15% anywhere with a proven widespread outbreak you aren't doing enough testing.

That doesn't make sense to me. If you have a proven widespread outbreak and test everyone in your country, the number's still going to be below 15%.

15% seems to be an average number for an area with known community spread. It was in Korea, it was in Germany.

If you are getting less than that, you aren't testing enough people. ALso if your number is far higher you might be only testing dire cases.

Re: Bolsonaro fires health minister, calls to reopen economy

#126

Post by 2019-nCoV » Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 12:03 AM UTC

seppin wrote: post #125

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make sense to me. If you have a proven widespread outbreak and test everyone in your country, the number's still going to be below 15%.

15% seems to be an average number for an area with known community spread. It was in Korea, it was in Germany. If you are getting less than that, you aren't testing enough people. ALso if your number is far higher you might be only testing dire cases.

You have it backwards. If your positivity rate continues to plummet as testing ramps up it points to the inverse. See other nations with wide spread testing and low positivity rates, namely Australia, NZ, Taiwan, UAE.

Re: Bolsonaro fires health minister, calls to reopen economy

#127

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 4:01 AM UTC

vanniv wrote: post #123

ashtonkem wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

[deleted]