FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

Causes, Effects, Outcomes.....

Jump to newest
 

By *ranny-Crumpet OP   Woman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Suppose that a world is destined to lose 3% of it's population to a life threatening virus.

Suppose there is no cure, no antidote, no vaccine.

Suppose that 97% of that world's population will survive physically.

Is it better for the population as a whole to be 'harvested' swiftly or taken in smaller batches over several diminishing waves.

What are the differences in end results in numbers and human tragedy ?

Is it a tragedy or all part of life's tapestry ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

You signed that treatment waiver and DNR yet?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-Crumpet OP   Woman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"You signed that treatment waiver and DNR yet?

"

In my head i'm doomed

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-Crumpet OP   Woman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"You signed that treatment waiver and DNR yet?

"

Answer the question ..........

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Not sure, death by a thousand cuts or a quick stab in the chest..

Both the same end so the latter..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-Crumpet OP   Woman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"Not sure, death by a thousand cuts or a quick stab in the chest..

Both the same end so the latter.. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke

The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate."

So the approach of keeping the peak(s) below NHS capacity is the correct one?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *limmatureguyMan
over a year ago

Tonbridge


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate."

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Also why we are spreading it out 500 people are missing their appointments every day, so cancer /heart; kidney disease are not being pick up. They are now saying half a million could die in the next 5 years because it's to late to save them. But we are keeping the headline numbers down, it's a joke.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"You signed that treatment waiver and DNR yet?

Answer the question .........."

Quick, but may not be painless

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It'd probably be less traumatic for society as a whole to try to avoid the deaths all happening at once. Can you imagine it? Public morturies and trench graves. It'd be horrific. Obviously all deaths would be tragic for the individuals and families affected.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

In 500 years time there won't be a difference, it will just be recorded statistically.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

So for now and future living memory it's a tragedy. After that it's part of life's rich tapestry.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate."

Others on here have stated 50%. As far as I'm aware they are not releasing such stats so can only assume neither figure is correct and are made up on the spot. Also only a percentage of those in ICU require ventilation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate."

Haven't seen those figures. Could you cite a source or give a link please?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

So the approach of keeping the peak(s) below NHS capacity is the correct one?"

Of course, there are just many options to achieve that and we are only using 1 which is what frustrates me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uietlykinkymeWoman
over a year ago

kinky land

Given the limit on nhs capabilities then for less deaths of covid 19 we need it to happen over a longer period,

I'm glad I don't need to be the one to find the balance between deaths of covid 19 and indirectly from covid 19 mixed into deaths affected because of the crisis caused by covid 19.

Me I don't have all the patience as a rule so prolonged agony versus short sharp; I would ordinarily opt for short & sharp. Throwing the death factor into the mix obviously tempers my natural preference.

Do I want to potentially loose friends now? No

Do I want to potentially loose friends in the next 3/6/12 months? No

Am I going to potentially loose friends, yes

I stay in lockdown to help prevent overwhelming the NHS in a hope that just one of my friends or someone else's friends, get what they need from the nhs and survive. That isn't limited to just death of covid 19.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *69BANMan
over a year ago

Reading


"Suppose that a world is destined to lose 3% of it's population to a life threatening virus.

Suppose there is no cure, no antidote, no vaccine.

Suppose that 97% of that world's population will survive physically.

Is it better for the population as a whole to be 'harvested' swiftly or taken in smaller batches over several diminishing waves.

What are the differences in end results in numbers and human tragedy ?

Is it a tragedy or all part of life's tapestry ?

"

Not sure if you're referring to covid specifically or a hypothetical situation, but 3% of the world's population is approx 210 million people!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate."

Receiving oxygen via various non invasive methods in ICU is very different to being placed on a ventilator that breathes for you.If you get to that stage you are very Ill and even some in the nhs think it actually makes you less likely to survive this virus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *limmatureguyMan
over a year ago

Tonbridge


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate.

Haven't seen those figures. Could you cite a source or give a link please? "

Search for "Most COVID-19 Patients Placed on Ventilators Died, New York Study Shows".

A study of about 5000 patients in New York, showed that of the 2500 whose outcome was known, 88% who were put on a ventilator died.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *limmatureguyMan
over a year ago

Tonbridge


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate.

Receiving oxygen via various non invasive methods in ICU is very different to being placed on a ventilator that breathes for you.If you get to that stage you are very Ill and even some in the nhs think it actually makes you less likely to survive this virus."

You can receive oxygen without going into icu, it is what the Nightingale hospitals are for. But they are all empty because we have so few cases.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-Crumpet OP   Woman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"Suppose that a world is destined to lose 3% of it's population to a life threatening virus.

Suppose there is no cure, no antidote, no vaccine.

Suppose that 97% of that world's population will survive physically.

Is it better for the population as a whole to be 'harvested' swiftly or taken in smaller batches over several diminishing waves.

What are the differences in end results in numbers and human tragedy ?

Is it a tragedy or all part of life's tapestry ?

Not sure if you're referring to covid specifically or a hypothetical situation, but 3% of the world's population is approx 210 million people! "

Yes. That was the maths for 1918. There are differing estimates so I rounded the middling figure of 2.7% to 3.

But ...... YES it was intended to be hypothetical and be about choice.

It's become mostly Covid and understandably so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *69BANMan
over a year ago

Reading


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate.

Receiving oxygen via various non invasive methods in ICU is very different to being placed on a ventilator that breathes for you.If you get to that stage you are very Ill and even some in the nhs think it actually makes you less likely to survive this virus."

It's not just from the virus, anything that requires you are put on mechanical ventilation more times than not means a poor outcome. There was a 3 part series on the beeb at the Gwent ICU (still on iPlayer) if anyone wants to see what happens on an ICU.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-Crumpet OP   Woman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

210 million would not be far off over a 2 year period. It was 50-100 million in 1918 from a population of 2billion. Which is why I asked about %'s

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ap d agde coupleCouple
over a year ago

Broadstairs


"Also why we are spreading it out 500 people are missing their appointments every day, so cancer /heart; kidney disease are not being pick up. They are now saying half a million could die in the next 5 years because it's to late to save them. But we are keeping the headline numbers down, it's a joke. "
my mother has had all her appointments for cancer this virus won’t kill as many people as cancer does and that’s excluding heart trouble ,strokes and god knows what else

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke

[Removed by poster at 23/04/20 14:08:43]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I think it's probably better to have a lower level of deaths over a longer period of time. This means that the people likely get the care and treatment, as well as closure with their families, that are closer to what feels like a normal experience. It's likely less brutal and shocking too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate.

Haven't seen those figures. Could you cite a source or give a link please?

Search for "Most COVID-19 Patients Placed on Ventilators Died, New York Study Shows".

A study of about 5000 patients in New York, showed that of the 2500 whose outcome was known, 88% who were put on a ventilator died."

Thanks, any idea what proportion of ICU admissions need a ventilator? I genuinely don't know and couldn't find a Google answer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *limmatureguyMan
over a year ago

Tonbridge


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate.

Haven't seen those figures. Could you cite a source or give a link please?

Search for "Most COVID-19 Patients Placed on Ventilators Died, New York Study Shows".

A study of about 5000 patients in New York, showed that of the 2500 whose outcome was known, 88% who were put on a ventilator died.

Thanks, any idea what proportion of ICU admissions need a ventilator? I genuinely don't know and couldn't find a Google answer. "

14% of patients in the study entered icu. 12% of patients in the study needed ventilation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think it's probably better to have a lower level of deaths over a longer period of time. This means that the people likely get the care and treatment, as well as closure with their families, that are closer to what feels like a normal experience. It's likely less brutal and shocking too. "

This for me too. You say it better than I could have.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate.

Haven't seen those figures. Could you cite a source or give a link please?

Search for "Most COVID-19 Patients Placed on Ventilators Died, New York Study Shows".

A study of about 5000 patients in New York, showed that of the 2500 whose outcome was known, 88% who were put on a ventilator died.

Thanks, any idea what proportion of ICU admissions need a ventilator? I genuinely don't know and couldn't find a Google answer.

14% of patients in the study entered icu. 12% of patients in the study needed ventilation."

12% in the study overall needed ventilation, or 12% of the 14% who entered ICU? There's a big difference.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adame 2SwordsWoman
over a year ago

Victoria, London

Getting to the point where I'll take my chances. Don't want to spread it, but I can't be doing with no income

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The death rate varies with ICU availability. If the deaths happened in one go then the death rate wouldn't be 3%, it would be a lot higher. If the deaths happen over time then it would actually be more like a 0.6% death rate.

Given that the figures are showing that up to 90% of those that need a ventilator don't survive, I would suggest that icu is not having much of an effect on the death rate.

Haven't seen those figures. Could you cite a source or give a link please?

Search for "Most COVID-19 Patients Placed on Ventilators Died, New York Study Shows".

A study of about 5000 patients in New York, showed that of the 2500 whose outcome was known, 88% who were put on a ventilator died.

Thanks, any idea what proportion of ICU admissions need a ventilator? I genuinely don't know and couldn't find a Google answer.

14% of patients in the study entered icu. 12% of patients in the study needed ventilation.

12% in the study overall needed ventilation, or 12% of the 14% who entered ICU? There's a big difference. "

I think the reason it is hard to find these stats is because they would terrify people ... i genuinely thought a good chunk of people being hospitalised were getting better and then going home til i had a look about online when boris got admitted and it the recovered numbers are tiny in comparison to hospitalisation and death (at that point only hospitalised people were being tested) i know it is not representative of people getting sick and recovering at home but really it looked alot like if you were sick enough to end up in hospital at all , the probability was you were dying

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top