[teejers1]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184

Mortality for those who received mechanical ventilation was 88.1% (n = 282). Mortality rates for those who received mechanical ventilation in the 18-to-65 and older-than-65 age groups were 76.4% and 97.2%, respectively.

Yikes!  I knew mortality was high for patients who made it onto the ventilator, but I thought high meant >50%, not 88% (and 97% for those over 65).



Also, there's a blurb about ACE/ARBs, which I will post in the appropriate thread.



BC

A very very important clarification to the study was published.  The 88.1% mortality referred only to patients with adjudicated outcomes (dead or discharged), but the majority of patients in the study were still on the ventilator at the time when the article was written. Here's the full clarification:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...dium=email

In the Abstract, Results paragraph, the sentence reporting mortality for patients receiving mechanical ventilation should read, “As of April 4, 2020, for patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 1151, 20.2%), 38 (3.3%) were discharged alive, 282 (24.5%) died, and 831 (72.2%) remained in hospital.”

The bottom line is that it is way too early to try to calculate the mortality of those patients, which will completely depend on what has happened and will happen to those 831 patients that remain hospitalized.  Unfortunately, the authors didn't further break those patients down.  If many or most of those are hospitalized but have been taken off the ventilator, their prospects for recovery and discharge are pretty good.  If many or most of them are still on the ventilator, their prospects are uncertain.  They may be ok if they've stabilized and are being weaned from the ventilator, which can be a slow process in some patients.  On the other hand, if they are not making progress, their prospects are poor, because sooner or later they will get a secondary infection or some other insult will push them over the edge.

BC

Look forward to all the commentators - scientific and MSM - ripping this report a new one for their sloppy methodologies that painted a misleading (or at least potentially very misleading) picture about the mortality rate . . . actually, I'm not.

[teejers1]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184

Mortality for those who received mechanical ventilation was 88.1% (n = 282). Mortality rates for those who received mechanical ventilation in the 18-to-65 and older-than-65 age groups were 76.4% and 97.2%, respectively.

Yikes!  I knew mortality was high for patients who made it onto the ventilator, but I thought high meant >50%, not 88% (and 97% for those over 65).



Also, there's a blurb about ACE/ARBs, which I will post in the appropriate thread.



BC

A very very important clarification to the study was published.  The 88.1% mortality referred only to patients with adjudicated outcomes (dead or discharged), but the majority of patients in the study were still on the ventilator at the time when the article was written. Here's the full clarification:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...dium=email

In the Abstract, Results paragraph, the sentence reporting mortality for patients receiving mechanical ventilation should read, “As of April 4, 2020, for patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 1151, 20.2%), 38 (3.3%) were discharged alive, 282 (24.5%) died, and 831 (72.2%) remained in hospital.”

The bottom line is that it is way too early to try to calculate the mortality of those patients, which will completely depend on what has happened and will happen to those 831 patients that remain hospitalized.  Unfortunately, the authors didn't further break those patients down.  If many or most of those are hospitalized but have been taken off the ventilator, their prospects for recovery and discharge are pretty good.  If many or most of them are still on the ventilator, their prospects are uncertain.  They may be ok if they've stabilized and are being weaned from the ventilator, which can be a slow process in some patients.  On the other hand, if they are not making progress, their prospects are poor, because sooner or later they will get a secondary infection or some other insult will push them over the edge.

BC

Look forward to all the commentators - scientific and MSM - ripping this report a new one for their sloppy methodologies that painted a misleading (or at least potentially very misleading) picture about the mortality rate . . . actually, I'm not.