Very low survival rate of COVID patients on ventilator

[Pekelo]

Cuomo said that only 20% survives once they get on a ventilator. I looked it up because I thought that was incredibly low:

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/mortality-rate-of-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators/

"I posed the following question on Twitter: “What is the mortality rate for [COVID-19] patients who require mechanical ventilation?” and received answers ranging from 25% to 70% from people who have personal knowledge of outcomes in their hospitals.

Probably the best published information we have so far is from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Center (ICNARC) in the UK. Of 165 patients admitted to ICUs, 79 (48%) died. Of the 98 patients who received advanced respiratory support—defined as invasive ventilation, BPAP or CPAP via endotracheal tube, or tracheostomy, or extracorporeal respiratory support—66% died."

It varies but it is not good. I would say the average is somewhere 66%, so if you have to be put on ventilator you should also ask for a priest.

But that also means that the role and effectiveness of ventilators are OVER RATED in the fight against this virus. If in NYC it is really 80% mortality rate, than you might as well not even try. Also it makes the triage easier, because the longer one stays on the machine, the poored his/her chances are.

So when deciding who gets a ventilator they can just look at how long a patient has been on it, and after a week they might just give it to someone else.

The point of this thread is that until now they have been hailing ventilators as a cure for this disease and it looks like it is hardly a help at all.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

He also said that the stuff on the Internet touted to combat the virus is full of shit.

He did say good things about chicken soup, though.

I hope he gets through this okay.

 

[Pekelo]

He also said

I like him but I don't always agree with him. For example:

1. His promise that he would give back ventilators to other communities once they apex was baloney. The apexes are going to overlap and by the time he could give them back other cities won't need them.

2. It is nice that 20K workers volunteered to help them out but I don't really see NYC doctors and nurses after what they went through volunteering to go to other cities. Their lives are more important to them. I don't blame them. And again, they will be needed for a long long time.

3. I have science studies showing that just drinking liquids and rest is a really poor way to fight the virus, once you had it. But every man for himself.

Not Cuomo's fault but the military's expectations that the red cross ship is only taking in non-virus patients is ridiculous. There will be cross infection no matter what they try, so eventually there WILL BE virus on the ship. So they might as well just take the infected people now.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I like him but I don't always agree with him. For example:

Sorry, I was referring to his younger brother, Chris, a CNN host who is at home currently battling the virus. I should have read your post more carefully. But I'm also trying to get groceries delivered to my 91-year-old aunt and uncle, who live about 20 kms away, but the supermarkets that deliver are swamped. So, multi-tasking.

 

[HobbyTrading]

Very timely contribution to this topic:

 

[ph1l]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...aced-ventilators-NYs-largest-health-DIED.html
Nearly 90 per cent of COVID-19 patients who were placed on ventilators in New York's largest health system DIED - and almost all of those hospitalized had underlying health conditions

 

[CaptainObvious]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...aced-ventilators-NYs-largest-health-DIED.html
Nearly 90 per cent of COVID-19 patients who were placed on ventilators in New York's largest health system DIED - and almost all of those hospitalized had underlying health conditions

Reinforced the point made by the OP. Why bother? Cold as it is treatment needs to be focused on those with decent odds of survival. This group is almost certain to die once needing ventilation. Shoot them up with morphine and let them pass is the more humane thing to do rather than condemning them to a prolonged agonizing death while trying to make ourselves feel better about our own moral decisions.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Reinforced the point made by the OP. Why bother? Cold as it is treatment needs to be focused on those with decent odds of survival. This group is almost certain to die once needing ventilation. Shoot them up with morphine and let them pass is the more humane thing to do rather than condemning them to a prolonged agonizing death while trying to make ourselves feel better about our own moral decisions.

What about the other 10% or so who go on ventilators and who pull through? They may have a different opinion. A thought experiment: If you or a loved one needed to go on a ventilator, would you just say no thanks and call it day?

 

[CaptainObvious]

What about the other 10% or so who go on ventilators and who pull through? They may have a different opinion. A thought experiment: If you needed to go on a ventilator, would you just say no thanks and call it day?

No doubt they would. The real question is how many of those 10 percent would survive anyway? Why not try that and see. As to me personally that's not possible to answer with certainty. One part of me would say F it, I'm done but no doubt another part would be desperate enough to try anything. I think it would be best to leave that decision to the doctors treating the patient giving consideration to age and any other pre existing conditions. Me at 68 with a heart arrhythmia I would expect the doc to say you're done. Another person say 40 and no serious health issues should have a shot at ventilation.

 

[Sig]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...aced-ventilators-NYs-largest-health-DIED.html
Nearly 90 per cent of COVID-19 patients who were placed on ventilators in New York's largest health system DIED - and almost all of those hospitalized had underlying health conditions

This is an interesting case study in general ignorance on statistics. The second half of the headline states "and almost all of those hospitalized had underlying health conditions"
This of course makes you think that the results of the study showed you were much more likely to die if you got COVID if you had a pre-existing condition then if you didn't, right?
The article later states "It was found that 57 per cent had high blood pressure, 42 per cent were obese and 34 per cent had diabetes" Turns out those numbers on their own don't tell the headline story. In fact interestingly it turns out that 42% of Americans are obese, for example. If you screen out those under 20 who are at very low risk for COVID death, the obesity rates would go up quite a bit. So what this statistic is telling us is actually the opposite of the headline at least for obesity. The number of obese people dying of COVID at best simply mirrors the number of obese people in the population as you would expect if it was completely random who died. More likely it actually shows you're less likely to die if you're over 20 and obese then if you aren't obese! That's the surprising result I see here, too bad all the talking heads have completely missed it.