blackjack21 wrote:Well, it's getting to the point where the death rate is low enough that they can't really consider it an epidemic anymore--at least according to their own definitions. However, we are in a presidential election season, so I do not see an end to the craziness until after early November.
Outbreaks vs. Epidemics
So we have an "outbreak" of coronavirus now, not an epidemic if we're following CDC guidance from 2019. The US has a confirmed case fatality rate of 3.92%.
As usual, you are spewing complete utter unmitigated nonsense.
Epidemic or Pandemic does not refer to any %% of deaths. They refer to the prevalence of a disease. You can have an epidemic of gonorrhea, had zero deaths and still be an epidemic. Your site it is some sort of dubious "Slate.com" and not the CDC.
From the ACTUAL CDC:https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/ ... hic%20area
Epidemic refers to an increase, often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in that area. Outbreak carries the same definition of epidemic, but is often used for a more limited geographic area.
Unless you consider the WHOLE United States as "more limited geographic area" or actually the WHOLE World "more limited geographic area". The only thing limited here is any shred of sincerity coming from you.
As for the OP, this has been discussed at length in previous posts. Your "High effort" is laughable.
As @Godstud hinted earlier part of the issue is the nature of the disease. By June, close to 600 healthcare workers have contracted the disease and died. How many healthcare workers do you reckon to get heart disease from their patients and die?
. Furthermore, this is under the paradigm that we are "aggressively" taking precautions for prevention of further disease. Now, we can have a whole debate in "how aggressive" are we really doing, arguably not much, but that's another point entirely.
Even under these conditions of large scale precautions... we still have close to 140k deaths in about 4 months. If you kept the same conditions and extended that for a year we would be looking closer to half a million people dying from this shit... and that is under lockdown situations, remove that from the equation and you could have even more.
Now, those are "just" deaths. And I don't mean "just" as if it didn't matter, it does, but what I am also trying to say is that we have other problems other than deaths to worry about.
Part of healthcare being run like a business means that hospitals are optimized to run like a business.
Most for-profit hospitals (and this have increased a lot in the last few decades due to non-profit/rurals going out of business or being bought out) means that they don't really have many "extra resources" (beds, personnel, etc). So they are ill-equipped to handle surges. Furthermore, this disease, even when it does not kill, tends to put people in the hospital for a significant amount of time, further decreasing the resources even when they don't die.
Then there is the issue of the vagueness of the statistics. For statistics to be useful, you need to understand the context and mechanism/how the system works. You need to know how they are reported, etc. Did you do the homework? What does the CDC consider heart disease? How are those reported/counted? At this actual cases or estimates? What degree of overlap exists... for instance if a patient comes with the flu, and has a heart attack while in the hospital does it count as both pneumonia and heart disease or does it count only as pneumonia or only as heart attack? What about a patient with atrial fibrillation that has a stroke as a result of a clot formed in the heart, would that lead to a "heart disease" report or something else?
How many diseases are "heart disease". There is no such thing as heart disease in medicine, rather there is coronary artery disease, heart failure with low or preserved ejection fraction, aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, and many others. Presumably, heart disease would include many of these.
Now, as I said, none of this is important. Even if you could demonstrate that all those cases are STEMIs, accurate (not estimate and no overlap with other etiologies), etc. You still have to reconcile this with the fact that we are talking about different entities with different pathophysiology.
Seems that most of the rest of the world had an approach that seems to be working. An approach that we failed to adhere to properly. We are paying the price now and we will continue to do so for years.