[teejers1]

Not sure I like the Stanford brand being connected to this one: Stanford Expert Says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients have nothing to do with Covid 19

Stanford expert says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients 'have nothing to do with COVID-19'

Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center, said while cases have increased in several parts of the country the death rate has not.

Story at a glance

• One doctor said the rate at which high-risk people are being affected and whether the death rate from the virus is increasing is what matters, rather than the total number of cases.
  
• He said the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is less than or equal to the seasonal flu.
  
• Atlas’ comments come as more than 130,000 people have died in the U.S. from coronavirus and more than 2.9 million cases have been confirmed.
  

An anecdote, fwliw:  a relative is on Board of Trustees at big Houston hospital and he mentioned that the reporting on capacity - to extent it states or implies - that Covid cases are causing the burst at seams, was misleading (at least respecting the hospital he has info on).  I presume his opinion was based on the same factors outlined above.

As a long-time advocate for data on hospital capacity, broken down by Covid/non-Covid - and including number of LTCF cases that comprise those hospitalized - I  believe a few observations are in order.  First, while it may be true that Covid patients comprise <25% (I just picked a number, no clue what real numbers are) of ICU beds, it can also be true that the incremental boost in ICU cases from Covid is the tipping point, especially if projected cases are on the rise.  In other words, Covid can both be a non-majority of ICU (and non-ICU) hospitalizations, yet still be deemed a legit cause for "bursting at the seams."  

It is also true that many hospitals shut down operations initially, in anticipation of NY level cases . . . which did not occur.  Thus, after weeks/months of losing money due to fewer "regular" cases, hospitals began re-admitting "regular" patients.  Thus, you can see from an optics standpoint why someone might say "It's not Covid, it's other patients taking up the lion's share of beds" as those kind of patients are on the rise, too.  But even if true, you want hospitals treating "regular" patients with needed (or even elective) surgeries, as they historically have done.  Indeed, that's part and parcel of "reopening" that you want.  And of course, I'm sure there is the ability to determine what historical "normals" are for hospital bed usage in non-Covid times, which is also enlightening.

Long way of saying that all of this hospitalization data is important - I think the most important - when it comes to making policy decisions on SiP loosening/tightening.  Good reporting would include all the above data so as to inform the public and paint an accurate picture of what's going on.

P.S.  I drafted this post and thought I had posted long before I did - in the interim I see BC raised similar points previously.  Apologies for the duplicative thoughts.

[teejers1]

Not sure I like the Stanford brand being connected to this one: Stanford Expert Says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients have nothing to do with Covid 19

Stanford expert says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients 'have nothing to do with COVID-19'

Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center, said while cases have increased in several parts of the country the death rate has not.

Story at a glance

• One doctor said the rate at which high-risk people are being affected and whether the death rate from the virus is increasing is what matters, rather than the total number of cases.
  
• He said the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is less than or equal to the seasonal flu.
  
• Atlas’ comments come as more than 130,000 people have died in the U.S. from coronavirus and more than 2.9 million cases have been confirmed.
  

An anecdote, fwliw:  a relative is on Board of Trustees at big Houston hospital and he mentioned that the reporting on capacity - to extent it states or implies - that Covid cases are causing the burst at seams, was misleading (at least respecting the hospital he has info on).  I presume his opinion was based on the same factors outlined above.

As a long-time advocate for data on hospital capacity, broken down by Covid/non-Covid - and including number of LTCF cases that comprise those hospitalized - I  believe a few observations are in order.  First, while it may be true that Covid patients comprise <25% (I just picked a number, no clue what real numbers are) of ICU beds, it can also be true that the incremental boost in ICU cases from Covid is the tipping point, especially if projected cases are on the rise.  In other words, Covid can both be a non-majority of ICU (and non-ICU) hospitalizations, yet still be deemed a legit cause for "bursting at the seams."  

It is also true that many hospitals shut down operations initially, in anticipation of NY level cases . . . which did not occur.  Thus, after weeks/months of losing money due to fewer "regular" cases, hospitals began re-admitting "regular" patients.  Thus, you can see from an optics standpoint why someone might say "It's not Covid, it's other patients taking up the lion's share of beds" as those kind of patients are on the rise, too.  But even if true, you want hospitals treating "regular" patients with needed (or even elective) surgeries, as they historically have done.  Indeed, that's part and parcel of "reopening" that you want.  And of course, I'm sure there is the ability to determine what historical "normals" are for hospital bed usage in non-Covid times, which is also enlightening.

Long way of saying that all of this hospitalization data is important - I think the most important - when it comes to making policy decisions on SiP loosening/tightening.  Good reporting would include all the above data so as to inform the public and paint an accurate picture of what's going on.

P.S.  I drafted this post and thought I had posted long before I did - in the interim I see BC raised similar points previously.  Apologies for the duplicative thoughts.