Data is already 4 days out of date, and it only went lower. The UK never really got above 30% of capacity. I expect it is fairly similar in the US and Canada.
Not at all similar in the US. Of course the US is a big place. Depends where you are. I know in Pennsylvania where we live we are way higher than 30% and have added a couple temporary hospitals in the hardest hit areas (not surprisingly more rural areas closer to New York where New Yorkers are more likely to travel/vacation, possibly to escape my, these areas don’t have the hospital infrastructure to handle the surge... seems like a good case for social distancing and limiting travel to places that may have similar issues if infected people were allowed to travel to) and of course New York had to add several temporary hospitals.
Thinking more about above we are a perfect example of why vacation spots should be concerned and why social distancing does matter. People in nyc, the hot spot, have traveled to vacation homes on Long Island, up to Massachusetts, to other areas of New York, and The Poconos, northeastern pa. All those areas are starting to see surges. Why? It is pretty obvious. It is because carriers of the virus are going to these spots and infecting people in those areas. It isn’t magic. The spread is person to person. Hospitalization capacity is low because the hospitals not only have more cases than other areas due to the travelers but also have to take care of the added population. Now if you look at the average rates for the entire state it doesn’t look as bad (and you could apply the same logic to the country) because we are on lock down preventing the virus from spreading to other counties in the state or at least reducing it. Because less people are out and about not only is the spread reduced but there are less accidents that also would result in hospitalizations. Less surgeries that would result in hospitalizations. So you can’t simply look at state wide numbers or even more so country wide numbers and make an educated conclusion on how the virus is effecting hospitalization rates and then turn that into a conclusion on spread of the virus.
Came across this article talking about Mexico entering stage 3 of the process. Mexico enters most serious 'Phase 3' spread of coronavirus epidemic — Reuters
And then you, too, could be one of the cool kids.....like us! Ha! (J/K, I know that not everyone is interested). Nice way to wishfully think though, the cosmic barter protocol. I get it & I like it. Kyle's right on the whole "capacity" argument, when that capacity isn't broken down into many more discrete sub-parts than I'm getting used to reviewing as I waste time researching on something I'm not really going to affect (effect? I never can remember). It becomes an exercise in manipulation of statistics, and a clever person can make statistics dance to the tune of the individual piper. I noted the extra hospitals, both temporary and shipborne being there in NYC, and I'd be interested in seeing a borough by borough breakdown of capacity of the specialized beds and other equipment (PPE/vents) by borough... that might be illustrative of... something. I've no idea what, but it'd be data we could perhaps analyze and compare to ... say... Boise, Idaho (who seems to be having a bit of a problem as well in some outer counties if I read that report right).
Of course in some places the number of in-patients or higher, but those are offset by other areas that are lower. The graph is a National picture, so it smoothes out regional differences The graph isn't suggesting anything about the spread, only that the number of people being hospitalized day by day is reducing in the UK as a whole.
My company "one of the nation's largest hospital management companies, with a network of acute care, behavioral health and multi-specialty medical offices across the country", is now starting to do lay-offs of people at the facility/hospital level (medical and office staff). We just don't have anywhere our normal business. You hear about all this demand, but we just don't have anything really. Obviously none of our facilities are in NYC.
There are more pieces of the puzzle then capacity. The biggest one being the fact that elective surgeries require PPE. IMHO, given the shortage of PPE, any available PPE should be going to the facilities that are in dire need rather then for elective surgery. And I say that as someone who just had a planned elective surgery cancelled.
Agree with you @Len from the Floor . Here in Canada, acute care/ICU hospital depts, long-term care, seniors' and disability support residences broadly remain in dire need of PPE ... burn rates are exceeding supply so rationing and reuse measures are in place... regrettably, and sadly, this creates undue risk and exposure. Frontline workers and clients are understandably at the highest risk in these premises (including for our younger daughter... a frontline MD)
