We know there are many "worried well" who go home soon
do we know that?
I think not
We know there are many "worried well" who go home soon
Well DO Think, then is a cheap shot, but the Worried Well being the bane of an ED's triage nurse's life, since forever, is not news.do we know that?
I think not
What do they do with the count for those? I don't know. We'd need to see data on length of stay if overnight.
The answer to that is pretty simple - or has been. If covid is not causing some one problems they wont be admitted. They will be told to go back and wait. Just having had a positive test result doesn't mean anything. Shortness of breath at some point is serious and can need prompt attention and is what gets people admitted.. Given numbers I can't see how that can have changed.
An overnight stay given that is rather highly unlikely. The condition occurs because covid has damaged a person lungs. Some find they don't recover completely but lowering oxygen levels if not halted means death for all.
Make me laugh actually - the the thought that it can be fixed and confirmed in 24hr. The average time is probably more like a week if people do recover and ventilation can go on for well over a month.
Firstly you've added an extra assumption that wasn't mentioned. Even if we're half as serious (or do you mean half the average duration of admissions?) then that's only another 2-3 days, because that doubling continues as well.You aren't in the same place, he's wrong! If that fewer number of hospitalizations are half as long, and they're half as serious, it makes a significant difference.
It certainly hasn't been with Delta and waves. Omicron pass but sending people who were just tested positive for it into hospital would cause those numbers to be enormous.That's speculation, is it not?
Wrong again. There you go accusing again when something simple is beyond you. Run along.Firstly you've added an extra assumption that wasn't mentioned. Even if we're half as serious (or do you mean half the average duration of admissions?) then that's only another 2-3 days, because that doubling continues as well.
Wrong again. There you go accusing again when something simple is beyond you. Run along.
"If the peak of this is twice as great [cases -X], then halving of the hospitalisation rate[hospitalisation-Y] means you still end up in the same place," Prof Whitty added.
You aren't in the same place, he's wrong! If that fewer number of hospitalizations[Y] are half as long[Z], and they're half as serious[WTF], it makes a significant difference. The divisors literally do multiply - leading to, for a long time, zero eg deaths. Try it with a few numbers on a bit of paper.
Whitty's motives to misconstrue are cogent and respectable. Yours aren't.For Chris Whitty he points out that if Y halves and X is doubled then you are no better off.
Your equation is presumably X*Y*Z*WTF. You added an additional two variables and picked random numbers for them of 0.5 Even if it were, that just means another two doublings to remove their effect.
Chris Whitty was not wrong, you have added another two variables beyond what he was describing.
Sweden had mandated lockdown measures in 2021
and the UK has never had full lockdown