[M T]

 If 20% require hospitalization, that's 6,000,000 for 1,000,000 beds.   

keep in mind the spread of infection over time: the 6,000,000 won't need hospital beds all at the same time. I feel reassured that we have enough beds to accommodate 1,000,000 hospitalized coronavirus patients at one time, as long as everyone else agrees not to get sick with anything else.  :)

There are 750,000 staffed beds in acute-care hospitals in the US; about 74,000 in California.

Wuhan (and the world) had patient 0  get sick on 1 December.   They're 3 months into this.  Wuhan got locked down 7 weeks later (23 Jan) and have been locked down for 36 days at this point.  Wuhan (pop 11M) still has 6400 serious patients.   (If you want to compare, Santa Clara County is 2M, 9-county SF Bay Area is 7.75M, Calif is 39.5M).

I made a spread sheet of the daily data published by China for Wuhan and Hubei for 13 Feb to 29 Feb in case anyone wants a copy.    deaths/(deaths + hospital discharges of confirmed cases) over the last 7 days is a rough CFR of 3%, but that number continues to fall (whether detection, treatment, care, less overload, I don't have evidence).  Daily new cases are roughly 600.  They are discharging roughly 1700/day.  Their high water mark for hospitalized was about 38,000, with a peak of serious cases about 9700.

As I said in another post, it appears they are hospitalizing a significant percentage of patients before a fever and/or cough appears, with a median incubation of 4 days (for that one study's cohort).  My guess is they are testing exposed people and putting positive tests in the hospital.

It appears the US has chosen, from the first few patients, to have positive-test patients stay at home, presumably unless/until they become serious.
As I understand it, a fever is required before the CDC will do a test.

[M T]

 If 20% require hospitalization, that's 6,000,000 for 1,000,000 beds.   

keep in mind the spread of infection over time: the 6,000,000 won't need hospital beds all at the same time. I feel reassured that we have enough beds to accommodate 1,000,000 hospitalized coronavirus patients at one time, as long as everyone else agrees not to get sick with anything else.  :)

There are 750,000 staffed beds in acute-care hospitals in the US; about 74,000 in California.

Wuhan (and the world) had patient 0  get sick on 1 December.   They're 3 months into this.  Wuhan got locked down 7 weeks later (23 Jan) and have been locked down for 36 days at this point.  Wuhan (pop 11M) still has 6400 serious patients.   (If you want to compare, Santa Clara County is 2M, 9-county SF Bay Area is 7.75M, Calif is 39.5M).

I made a spread sheet of the daily data published by China for Wuhan and Hubei for 13 Feb to 29 Feb in case anyone wants a copy.    deaths/(deaths + hospital discharges of confirmed cases) over the last 7 days is a rough CFR of 3%, but that number continues to fall (whether detection, treatment, care, less overload, I don't have evidence).  Daily new cases are roughly 600.  They are discharging roughly 1700/day.  Their high water mark for hospitalized was about 38,000, with a peak of serious cases about 9700.

As I said in another post, it appears they are hospitalizing a significant percentage of patients before a fever and/or cough appears, with a median incubation of 4 days (for that one study's cohort).  My guess is they are testing exposed people and putting positive tests in the hospital.

It appears the US has chosen, from the first few patients, to have positive-test patients stay at home, presumably unless/until they become serious.
As I understand it, a fever is required before the CDC will do a test.