Sivad wrote:You can say that but it's not accurate. That's not how a doctor would explain it in a medical report. I just read an article about how a lot of doctors were complaining about the cause of death forms they have to fill out because the forms require them to oversimplify. "the virus killed them" is what we say in everyday speech but it's medically incorrect.
In their medical reports they discuss immediate and intermediate(or underlying) causes of death. It's not straightforward and there's a big problem with doctors filling out the forms incorrectly.
Immediate cause of death:The final disease or injury causing the death.
Intermediate cause of death: A disease or condition that preceded and caused the immediate cause of death.
Underlying cause of death: A disease or condition present before, and leading to, the intermediate or immediate cause of death. It can be present for years before the death.
It's certainly much more medically correct than your description. And after telling me that these people die of oldness you are now lecturing that the issue is complicated. Make your mind up, please.
Viruses like that, if unrestricted, sweep through at risk populations and kill a lot of people who would otherwise have lived for years. Often this includes older people, sometimes the very young and rarer people in their prime. These are preventable deaths and hence should be counted. As far as the counting goes, it's really that simple. And it's not like the other conditions aren't recorded. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the information you're using to downplay the situation.
Note also that in the case of Northern Italy you are already seeing the result of triaging, so that the picture is even more skewed towards older and sick people than it would be anyway, yet here you are using this "artificial" bias caused by limited capacity to argue that this is nothing serious.
Of course, you are also ignoring the issue of possible under-counting, since we can only make an attribution for those who have been tested.
The UK has preliminary statistics
about how many people in critical care die compared with influenza. While the percentages for Covid may well change in the future, keep in mind that the UK healthcare system is still coping with the number of patients:
At this point, roughly 50% of critical care patients die in the UK.
fokker wrote:The eastern EU is taking a more careful approach as it doesn't want to end up in blind alley. But it's been communicated here already that the government won't attempt to stop the pandemic. This buys them time to better prepare for rise of cases. It's expected eventually most people will get it, but without overloading the healthcare system. The number of new cases is slowly accelerating despite all restrictions.
That's my impression as well, although what's next isn't really communicated clearly. To some extent this is because of uncertainty, but my main question is how this is going to be accomplished without us going collectively bankrupt. It will take years for enough people to get infected to develop herd immunity and even if we're counting on a vaccine this is at least 12 months away. Not to be alarmist, but I've already seen news that countries have started to hoard staples.
I think that eradication should have been at least attempted much more seriously and forcefully, but this seems to have never been regarded as a realistic option in western countries. There's been a weird kind of fatalism all the way through this as well as a lot of misinformation and outright lies by official sources. Thinking especially about masks here but also other stuff.
On a small upside, the open border enthusiasts will go into a long hibernation and possibly the idea is going to be killed stone dead.