Hacker News Reader

Comment by tw04 | Hacker News Reader

There's literally one state with 0 deaths, and it's the same state that had to inform our president that there aren't enough tests available for them to contain the virus. To which he responded with confusion because he was convinced that there are more than enough tests and have been for weeks (that response should tell you how much trouble we're in). It is not a matter of if, but when they will see their first death.

https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spr...

I'm not sure what your source of information is on this virus, but you've got an extremely naive outlook if you think anything other than a total shutdown is going to contain it at this point. And quite frankly contain isn't even the right term because we can't contain it anymore, all we can do is try to limit the death count.

View on HN

Deaths on the scale of 0-10 per state are not noteworthy. Flattening the curve is about keeping the case count within hospital capacity.

We are well beyond "contain it"; it has been everywhere in US for weeks now. But low density regions with sufficient hospital capacity don't need to use the same tactics as high density urban settings where hospital beds are at a premium.

> low density regions with sufficient hospital capacity

These regions were already struggling with hospital capacity before the virus hit.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rural-hospital-closings...

> More than 100 rural hospitals have closed in the United States since 2010 and another 430 are at risk of closing, which a new study says could have life-or-death implications for rural communities.

> University of Washington researchers examined 92 rural hospital closings in California from 1995 to 2011. They found that while the closings of urban hospitals had no impact on their surrounding communities, rural closings caused their populations — which have limited access to health care and other services — to see mortality rates rise 5.9 percent.

There is a limited amount of time we can be on a lockdown. For example, in Massachusetts where all non essential business are shut down, pretty much all routine medical care has stopped. The major safety net hospital in Boston is laying off 10% of the workforce because they are not seeing routine patients). So the time in lockdown needs to be spent wisely, otherwise we will create more health problems than we solve. 8-9 million people a year die from cardiovascular disease in the US. If that rises by just 5%, we will have made things a lot worse

Agreed. Another example: I have a dental abscess I can't get treated because all dentists have shut down at least into May. In my case it can probably wait, but some people's dental issues will lead to acute complications here and now, and also bad dental health can lead to heart problems in the long term, thus again worrying in terms of cardiovascular disease.

I'm not sure why shutdown prevents routine patients though? At least, in my country anyone needing to go see a doctor is exempt from the lockdown.

Doctors and dentists routinely catch colds and flus from their patients. In most countries they are not working behind a perspex face shield (and as you know, there is now a shortage of such safety equipment). Consequently, they could easily catch coronavirus during this lockdown and spread it, or even perish from it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com