Poll of the Day > The point of LOCKDOWNS is to NOT Overwhelm HOSPITALS. Does it make sense to you?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The #1 reason for covid lockdowns is not overwhelm the hospitals causing a crisis and collapse. It isnt just about saving lives its about not swarming hospitals with sick people since healthcare is very important.

Some people dont seem to get that or dont care for that matter and think they should just build more hospitals to fix this problem and that be it...even though hospitals are PRIVATE in the states and government cant just build more hospitals..

But does this make sense to you on why lockdowns happen?

https://i.imgur.com/fJDxQZQ.jpg

The common flu and cold don't overrun hospitals. The covid panic from fearmongering is what is causing hospitals to be overwhelmed.

yes, "flattening the curve" or whatever is pretty important. even though it is just prolonging the problem, the alternative would be mass death, overflowing the health system as well as corpse disposal. during the spanish flu, your family member(s) would die and there'd be no where to send the bodies. morgues were at many times capacity, there weren't enough coffins, etc.

mrduckbear posted...

The #1 reason for covid lockdowns is not overwhelm the hospitals causing a crisis and collapse. It isnt just about saving lives its about not swarming hospitals with sick people since healthcare is very important.

The two are interconnected. Overburdening hospitals is a way to basically ensure more people will die, not just from COVID, but from other conditions that don't get promptly treated as a result.

BEERandWEED posted...

The common flu and cold don't overrun hospitals.

And this is relevant how? When you get a common cold it doesn't cause permanent lung and brain damage if it doesn't kill you. Do you even know what covid-19 is or what it does?

BEERandWEED posted...

The common flu and cold don't overrun hospitals.

True. But thats probably because most people probably dont go the the hospital for the common flu and cold. They usually take some medicine and stay home

LinkPizza posted...

True. But thats probably because most people probably dont go the the hospital for the common flu and cold. They usually take some medicine and stay home

They are now because they've been conditioned to be fearful that their cold is now deadly.

BEERandWEED posted...

They are now because they've been conditioned to be fearful that their cold is now deadly.

Probably depends on the people. Some people get tested before rushing the ER, while some just going on with there lives. Some will rather isolate themselves, while some are just asymptomatic. And some people know the symptoms, and probably wont rush to the hospital if the symptoms dont match And others might since they dont know. The problem is we dont know what will happen. So why take chances if probably what theyre thinking

Lockdowns are great for hospitals and it's patients sure but for the rest of us not so much. Many folk are out or work or have lost their business because of lockdowns. While not overwhelming hospitals can save lives lockdowns can take lives. I suggest we just get on with it as covid is something we must live with regardless.

wwinterj25 posted...

Lockdowns are great for hospitals and it's patients sure but for the rest of us not so much. Many folk are out or work or have lost their business because of lockdowns. While not overwhelming hospitals can save lives lockdowns can take lives. I suggest we just get on with it as covid is something we must live with regardless.

Alcoholism is up, domestic violence is up, suicides are up, some people have burned through their retirement savings, scores of millions have missed their cancer screenings. This had better be the apocalypse we're staving off.

mrduckbear posted...

But does this make sense to you on why lockdowns happen?

No, because your explanation is gibberish and I'm pretty sure it's wrong on top of it.

BEERandWEED posted...

The common flu and cold don't overrun hospitals.

That would be because, by and large, influenza and the common cold are less contagious and significantly less dangerous than Covid. Covid has killed more Americans every month since September 1 than influenza does in a typical year, and that's despite significant efforts to prevent that.

I don't know why you people keep insisting on trying to pretend that Covid is no worse than the flu, but that is outright false.

BEERandWEED posted...

The covid panic from fearmongering is what is causing hospitals to be overwhelmed.

Covid patients don't get admitted to the ICU because of fearmongering. They get admitted to the ICU because they're hours away from multiple organ failure. Similarly, people that show up with cold symptoms don't automatically get admitted for Covid unless they actually have a serious enough case to warrant it.

In places that are handling Covid remotely sensibly, people don't rush to the ER because they have cold symptoms. People get tested (at test sites that are generally not actually in hospitals) if they have cold symptoms, while isolating until they get their results back. Those that test positive are then instructed to isolate and seek further medical attention if their symptoms worsen in specifically defined ways. If people are going to straight to the ER, it's because testing protocols haven't been made clear and/or tests are not adequately available.

I'm not sure why you think an extra 60,000+ people being admitted to hospitals each day is just a consequence of fearmongering and not a product of 60,000+ people per day actually being sick enough to need hospitalization, nor that an extra 60,000+ inpatients per day wouldn't be pretty taxing for most hospitals (average length of stay is 11.9 days, so that works out to a total ~714,000 hospital beds allocated nation-wide to dealing with Covid patients for as long as rates stay this high). Even that doesn't capture the whole story, since outbreaks are generally quite localized and certain hospitals are having to deal with a disproportionate share of that total.

Zeus posted...

No, because your explanation is gibberish and I'm pretty sure it's wrong on top of it.

It's the whole "flatten the curve" thing that bounced around so much in the early days. By imposing lockdown measures to reduce case rates, you cause it to take longer for the whole population to gain immunity by being infected, but you prevent the total case load from getting higher than the health care system can handle. In practice, natural immunity doesn't seem to be lasting long enough for "the whole population will eventually reach herd immunity on their own" to be a valid philosophy, but it's still beneficial to keep case numbers low enough to avoid overwhelming hospitals while we wait for vaccination rates to get high enough to improve the situation (at least, it would have been, if people didn't suck).

Duckbear's explanation isn't exactly helpful, but he's quite correct.

It makes sense to me. It's prevention.

I don't indent to ever go to the hospital. Can I disregard any lockdown now?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't indent to ever go to the hospital.

Even if your life depends on getting medical aid?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Can I disregard any lockdown now?

If you can somehow guarantee that you won't end up spreading the virus to other people, sure. The only actual way to guarantee that, however, is to lock yourself down, so you're kinda right back where you started.

adjl posted...

Even if your life depends on getting medical aid?

I don't value my life. Certainly not the extent of what a medical bill would cost.

adjl posted...

If you can somehow guarantee that you won't end up spreading the virus to other people, sure.

That's irrelevant to the stated goal. So long as they don't get admitted to the hospital either then a lockdown is unnecessary to preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't value my life. Certainly not the extent of what a medical bill would cost.

That's not a particularly healthy attitude.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's irrelevant to the stated goal. So long as they don't get admitted to the hospital either then a lockdown is unnecessary to preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed.

In order to guarantee that you won't end up sending other people to the hospital, you need to guarantee that you won't end up spreading the virus to them. I didn't think I need to spell out that intermediate step, but here we are.

adjl posted...

That's not a particularly healthy attitude.

I'm not doing well mental health wise.

adjl posted...

In order to guarantee that you won't end up sending other people to the hospital

I think the hospitals themselves will dissuade that from happening. When my father lost his fingers to a table saw a few years ago all the local emergency room did was offer to call him an ambulance to the next county over. Hospitals can't be overwhelmed if they don't accept patients.

adjl posted...

It's the whole "flatten the curve" thing that bounced around so much in the early days. By imposing lockdown measures to reduce case rates, you cause it to take longer for the whole population to gain immunity by being infected, but you prevent the total case load from getting higher than the health care system can handle. In practice, natural immunity doesn't seem to be lasting long enough for "the whole population will eventually reach herd immunity on their own" to be a valid philosophy, but it's still beneficial to keep case numbers low enough to avoid overwhelming hospitals while we wait for vaccination rates to get high enough to improve the situation (at least, it would have been, if people didn't suck).

Duckbear's explanation isn't exactly helpful, but he's quite correct.

Your explanation doesn't jive with what he said.

Zeus posted...

Your explanation doesn't jive with what he said.

adjl appears to have difficulty with abstract reasoning.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think the hospitals themselves will dissuade that from happening. When my father lost his fingers to a table saw a few years ago all the local emergency room did was offer to call him an ambulance to the next county over. Hospitals can't be overwhelmed if they don't accept patients.

That means they were already overwhelmed. When hospitals refuse patients like that, it's either because they lack the specialties needed to take care of them (unlikely for something as routine as an amputation), or because they don't have the capacity to take on any more patients. That's mostly alright when going to the next county over is an option, but Covid's a much bigger problem than that:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/a-man-died-after-he-couldn-t-get-a-cardiac-icu-bed-in-43-u-s-hospitals-due-to-pandemic-family-says-1.5583446

In many regions that are experiencing particularly bad outbreaks, not only are local hospitals full to capacity, nearby hospitals are also full to capacity because they're fighting the same outbreak. That's a particularly egregious story, but hospitals around the world are having patients that need ICU beds lying on stretchers in hallways while they wait for Covid patients to die so a bed is freed up.

Quite simply, "hospitals can't be overwhelmed if they don't accept patients" is entirely the wrong way to look at it. I don't know if you're thinking about this in terms of doctors/nurses being overworked, or what, but it's talking about there being more patients than the health care system can handle. If hospitals in an area aren't accepting patients to the point that some don't get treated, that means the local health care system is overwhelmed. By definition.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm not doing well mental health wise.

I'm sorry to hear that and I hope you can find the help you need to get through it, but I'm afraid endangering other people isn't going to help.

Zeus posted...

Your explanation doesn't jive with what he said.

Lockdowns-->lower case rates-->lower hospitalization rates-->lower risk that there will be more patients needing hospitalization than hospitals can handle=lower risk of overwhelming hospitals

Duckbear left out the intermediate steps there, which means he didn't actually explain anything at all, but the overall premise and conclusion were there. Would modelling it help you understand?

Lockdowns dont work

Didnt work here, didn't work back home

The point of lockdown is to not overwhelm the hospitals WITH UNVAXXED people who got sick.

Us Vaccinated/Boostered should not have to suffer since we took the risk of injection.

teddy241 posted...

The point of lockdown is to not overwhelm the hospitals WITH UNVAXXED people who got sick.

Us Vaccinated/Boostered should not have to suffer since we took the risk of injection.

Depends entirely how bad a given outbreak is. If infection rates are high enough that even the reduced risk of vaccinated people being infected is high enough to create the risk of overwhelming hospitals, vaccinated people should be included.

adjl posted...

That means they were already overwhelmed.

Hardly. That hospital has a 5 star safety rating and they maintain it by never treating anyone with anything more severe than high blood pressure. They also brag about having the best doctors in the area. It has less to do with capacity or resources and everything to do with holding onto status.

adjl posted...

I'm sorry to hear that and I hope you can find the help you need to get through it

Thank you.

adjl posted...

but I'm afraid endangering other people isn't going to help.

I don't believe anyone is endangered. Further the fear mongering and regulations only make it harder to seek help. So in that regard you are wrong. Being able to move around freely, without facing scrutiny over masks or vaccination papers, would help.

adjl posted...

Duckbear left out the intermediate steps there, which means he didn't actually explain anything at all, but the overall premise and conclusion were there.

Not my branch of the discussion but I want to point something out here. He actually did mention the intermediate step. He just placed that at a lower priority. All that matters is that they treat some people. Thus hospitals are made more important than the health of people. This prioritization means that lockdowns are the result of those who are seeking medical treatment. They are the ones to blame, not those who are refusing it. News outlets have placed the blame on the latter.

Hospitals can't get overwhelmed if they don't accept patients. That's some sound logic.

Republicant health plan: just dont get sick, and if you do, then die.

Democan't health plan: wreck the economy so the people become dependent on the government, promise to pay for everything while ignoring rising costs, after realizing a lack of taxable income has left the government broke reject all claims and stick the people with bills they can't afford. Maintain power by shifting the blame onto Republicans for impeding a bill that had in all likelihood had more to do with social justice programs than actually funding anything.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Hardly. That hospital has a 5 star safety rating and they maintain it by never treating anyone with anything more severe than high blood pressure. They also brag about having the best doctors in the area. It has less to do with capacity or resources and everything to do with holding onto status.

That's just a garbage hospital, then. Hospitals turning away patients purely for the sake of being able to say they still have empty beds isn't a solution to the problem here. The problem is that there won't be enough resources to treat everyone that needs treatment unless infection rates are kept under control. "We're not overwhelmed, we just don't want any more patients" does nothing to fix the people dying on stretchers as the paramedics search for a place that can take them.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't believe anyone is endangered.

We're in the midst of the greatest public health crisis in a century. Everyone is endangered, and those refusing to take preventative measures to mitigate that danger absolutely do make it worse.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Further the fear mongering and regulations only make it harder to seek help. So in that regard you are wrong. Being able to move around freely, without facing scrutiny over masks or vaccination papers, would help.

Therapists have phones. Problem solved. Scrutiny over masks and vaccinations is very easy to render meaningless by wearing a mask and getting vaccinated, and if you've got a problem with that requirement, I recommend paying attention to all of the people that are trying to teach you how public health works. Those requirements are in fact necessary to avoid massive casualties. I'm sorry if that stresses you out, but that's the reality we live in, so you need to figure out how to come to terms with that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This prioritization means that lockdowns are the result of those who are seeking medical treatment. They are the ones to blame, not those who are refusing it. News outlets have placed the blame on the latter.

Nobody's placing blame on the tiny handful of people that have actually refused all medical care and chosen to die in their homes for hospitals being congested. Those people do indeed not congest hospitals, for obvious reasons (though most with such an attitude also do very little to avoid infecting others, so they're not as innocent as you might like to believe). The blame is being placed on the unvaccinated because it's overwhelmingly unvaccinated people that are taking up ICU beds when the consequences of their (in)actions come calling. That is an empirical fact. Further blame is being placed on those rejecting preventative measures for fueling the spread that is resulting in so many hospitalizations. That is also empirically supported.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

All that matters is that they treat some people. Thus hospitals are made more important than the health of people.

Literally nobody is thinking like that, with the sole exception of board members of garbage hospitals like the one your dad tried to go to. When people say they're worried about hospitals being overwhelmed, that means they're worrying that people who need care won't be able to get it. The hospitals themselves don't enter the equation at all the way you're trying to insert them.

adjl posted...

That's just a garbage hospital, then.

It still guarantees that I won't end up sending other people to the hospital since everyone in the area already knows it's pointless to go.

adjl posted...

Nobody's placing blame on the tiny handful of people that have actually refused all medical care

There has been lots of rhetoric blaming the unvaxxed for the continued restrictions. Including those that never had symptoms to seek treatment for.

adjl posted...

The blame is being placed on the unvaccinated because it's overwhelmingly unvaccinated people that are taking up ICU beds

Then they sought medical treatment and what I said still applies.

adjl posted...

Literally nobody is thinking like that,

Thinking like that is the subject of this topic.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't believe anyone is endangered

I don't believe the earth is round. It's turtles all the way down.

I don't believe birds exist. They're just government drones.

I don't believe stars exist. They're just fireflies that got stuck up on that big, bluish-black thing

Metalsonic66 posted...

I don't believe the earth is round. It's turtles all the way down.

I don't believe birds exist. They're just government drones.

I don't believe stars exist. They're just fireflies that got stuck up on that big, bluish-black thing

The "facts" surrounding covid are very different from actual facts.

adjl posted...

that's the reality we live in, so you need to figure out how to come to terms with that.

Reality kind of sucks these days, tbh...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It still guarantees that I won't end up sending other people to the hospital since everyone in the area already knows it's pointless to go.

Actually, they'll probably still go. They'll just go to a not garbage hospital... That makes more sense. If someone needs to go to a hospital, they go. If they can't go to a garbage hospital, then they go to a better one...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There has been lots of rhetoric blaming the unvaxxed for the continued restrictions. Including those that never had symptoms to seek treatment for.

From what I heard, you can still pass on the virus, even if you're asymptomatic...

Metalsonic66 posted...

I don't believe the earth is round.

I have seen sufficient evidence that the Earth is spherical, we live on it's outer surface, and objects orbit other objects of greater mass.

Metalsonic66 posted...

I don't believe birds exist.

I've seen birds. I've seen plenty get hit by cars or torn apart by cats. They're not mechanical on the inside.

Metalsonic66 posted...

I don't believe stars exist.

Actually there are some mysteries about this. But I don't think they can be explained by fireflies.

None of these statements address the reason for the beliefs I hold or don't.

LinkPizza posted...

From what I heard, you can still pass on the virus, even if you're asymptomatic...

We're discussing getting treatment at a hospital. No reason to do that if there are no symptoms to treat.

BEERandWEED posted...

The "facts" surrounding covid are very different from actual facts.

SureIBelieveU

Metalsonic66 posted...

SureIBelieveU

Of course you don't. You haven't studied history or sociology enough to know better than to believe what you've been told.

Says the guy who thought women could only conceive for a few days out of the month lol

Metalsonic66 posted...

Says the guy who thought women could only conceive for a few days out of the month lol

"You're most fertile at the time of ovulation which usually occurs 12 to 14 days before your next period starts. This is the time of the month when you're most likely to get pregnant.

That's not what you said lol

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We're discussing getting treatment at a hospital. No reason to do that if there are no symptoms to treat.

Sure. But I'm referring to your statement about "rhetoric blaming the unvaxxed". You mentioned how they shouldn't be blamed for never went to the hospital to get symptoms treated because they had no symptoms. But it's possible they are still helping the hospitals fill up in their own way by passing on the virus to many others...

LinkPizza posted...

But it's possible they are still helping the hospitals fill up in their own way by passing on the virus to many others...

The subject of this topic is that lockdowns exist to benefit the hospitals first, and the people as an after thought. Under this reasoning so long as the people who have symptoms don't go to the hospital it won't trigger a lockdown. The spread of the disease is not the triggering variable.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The subject of this topic is that lockdowns exist to benefit the hospitals first, and the people as an after thought.

You can say that people are the after thought. Maybe it's true. But in the end, not swarming hospitals still actually helps the people but hopefully having the resources to take care of the people that do need medical care...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Under this reasoning so long as the people who have symptoms don't go to the hospital it won't trigger a lockdown. The spread of the disease is not the triggering variable.

Except that's not true. If the people who don't have symptoms still goes around spreading the virus to everyone else, then those people may go to the hospital, meaning that the people who didn't go could actually be making it worse. For example, instead of them taking up one bed, they could spread the virus to 20 more people who all now need a bed, taking up 20 beds. Or spread it to 10 people who spread it to 10 more people who all go, taking up 100 beds. So, just because they aren't going to the hospital doesn't mean they aren't helping. They could be making it worse. If they only took up 1 bed without spreading it, that would only be 1 bed compared to 20 or 100...Not saying it's definitely going to happen. But it definitely can... Which means they could take some of the blame... And I definitely would count the spreading of the disease as a variable. It would be weird to not consider that...

Metalsonic66 posted...

That's not what you said lol

That's the "science" I referenced.

LinkPizza posted...

not swarming hospitals still actually helps the people

Not if this is achieved by lockdown. Because the focus is hospitals only the benefit to them is considered. This is not weighed against the detrimental effect a lockdown has on people. The net result would determine if lockdowns help them.

LinkPizza posted...

then those people may go to the hospital

And those people would be to blame for the lockdown.

LinkPizza posted...

For example, instead of them taking up one bed, they could spread the virus to 20 more people who all now need a bed, taking up 20 beds.

Why would the hospital assign a bed to someone who isn't receiving treatment?

BEERandWEED posted...

That's the "science" I referenced.

I think many people know that, or something similar. I feel if you said it like that, nobody would have said anything. You must have said it weirdly for people to say something to you about it...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not if this is achieved by lockdown. Because the focus is hospitals only the benefit to them is considered. This is not weighed against the detrimental effect a lockdown has on people. The net result would determine if lockdowns help them.

The lockdown would help either way. If less people are out, then less people are spreading or getting the virus. Meaning less people would probably need to go to the hospital for COVID, meaning the hospitals are less swarmed. So, it still actually helps people. Obviously, you still go to the hospital if you need medical care. The lockdown just tries to restrict unnecessary movement...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And those people would be to blame for the lockdown.

Maybe. But they don't deserve all the blame. The people who passed it on deserve some of the blame, too... Even moreso if they person wasn't vaccinated or wearing a mask... and the person who gave it to them, and the person who gave it to them... But if you can at least lower you chances of spreading it by getting vaccinated, wearing a mask, and staying home, that's good and helps...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why would the hospital assign a bed to someone who isn't receiving treatment?

They could receive treatment, though... And to be honest, having one person receive treatment would be better than 20 or 100. Or they could stay home... Either way, jus because you don't have symptoms or go to the hospital doesn't mean doesn't mean a lockdown won't trigger. If they are going out, they could help to spread the disease around more, which could cause others to go to the hospital, which could help trigger the lockdown...

BEERandWEED posted...

That's the "science" I referenced.

No you didn't

You straight up said women can ONLY get pregnant a few days out of the month

And then try to tell everyone about how much more you know about the world than everyone else

LinkPizza posted...

The lockdown would help either way.

Not if if the net result is negative.

LinkPizza posted...

Obviously, you still go to the hospital if you need medical care.

That's up to the individual. Though that choice is made significantly harder after the lockdown weakens the economy.
And a weakened economy means hospitals would have access to fewer resources.
And fewer resources means they're more expensive.
And the medical bill the person already couldn't afford is even more costly.

LinkPizza posted...

The lockdown just tries to restrict unnecessary movement...

It also damages the economy, worsens the mental health of people, reduces social cohesion. induces anxiety, and possibly more.

LinkPizza posted...

The people who passed it on deserve some of the blame, too...

They aren't in hospitals and therefore not triggering the lockdown.

LinkPizza posted...

But if you can at least lower you chances of spreading it

Again, the spread isn't the triggering variable.

LinkPizza posted...

They could receive treatment, though...

We're talking about people who have refused medical treatment. Treating a person without their consent is medical battery.

Well if people would just use common sense i.e. wearing a mask and avoiding crowds, there would be no need for lockdowns but as we have seen for the past year plus, we still have people who aren't taking this Covid-19 thing serious even after 800,000 people plus have died from it, we're still in denial and as Americans we all have that hubris about us that makes us think we're invincible and we're not so using common sense would go a long way.

I haven't been vaccinated so from that standpoint alone, I avoid crowds and I wear a mask when I leave alone. I also don't allow people in my home without a mask.

@Metalsonic66

2 weeks out of 4, on average, qualifies as a few days since based on how variant an individual women's fertility might be.

Do you even understand human anatomy?