quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).

The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).

The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.

Global Warming, now there is a cesspool for politics. But if it weren't for global warming, the Earth, or at least most of it, would be covered by about 2 miles of ice. The Earth was previously warmer by about 4 degrees C nearly 2000 years ago . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

At the risk of getting this thread locked, I will make the following observation.

People need to understand the difference between the natural variability of climate, and human caused climate change. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).

The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.

Global Warming, now there is a cesspool for politics. But if it weren't for global warming, the Earth, or at least most of it, would be covered by about 2 miles of ice. The Earth was previously warmer by about 4 degrees C nearly 2000 years ago . . .

Well, there's an assertion that I have never seen before. Got a reliable source for that? Who was taking temperature readings in the days before thermometers? And worldwide stats? Sure, studying geographic evidence in digs can indicate some things about past climates, but accurate enough to say a given temperature range? And if they say ice cores from the Antarctic have the evidence that the air was 4ºC warmer, I will have to ask what ice would have been possible then - the Antarctic is already suffering huge losses of ice at current temperatures.

The evidence of warming is not just in current temperature studies of air and ocean, but in behaviour of storms, wildfires and movement of insect/bird/animal/fish populations toward formerly cold regions they could not survive in. And ocean currents that reliably flowed for thousands of years are suddenly ceasing movement as the melting ice of the cold regions stops the northward movement of tropic waters.

As one scientist put it "The more energy you add to a system, the more chaotic the events in the system - like a pot of water going from simmer to full boil." That sure seems to fit with observations over my lifetime. Note that none of the above mentions politics, it is just describing what we are seeing/measuring. Politics only gets involved when we have to decide if we should do anything about what is happening. I will not go there if you don't.

quote:

We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation received on Earth. For similar reasons, the penultimate interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high-latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene, warming was not uniform across the globe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).

The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.

Global Warming, now there is a cesspool for politics. But if it weren't for global warming, the Earth, or at least most of it, would be covered by about 2 miles of ice. The Earth was previously warmer by about 4 degrees C nearly 2000 years ago . . .

Well, there's an assertion that I have never seen before. Got a reliable source for that? Who was taking temperature readings in the days before thermometers? And worldwide stats? Sure, studying geographic evidence in digs can indicate some things about past climates, but accurate enough to say a given temperature range? And if they say ice cores from the Antarctic have the evidence that the air was 4ºC warmer, I will have to ask what ice would have been possible then - the Antarctic is already suffering huge losses of ice at current temperatures.

The evidence of warming is not just in current temperature studies of air and ocean, but in behaviour of storms, wildfires and movement of insect/bird/animal/fish populations toward formerly cold regions they could not survive in. And ocean currents that reliably flowed for thousands of years are suddenly ceasing movement as the melting ice of the cold regions stops the northward movement of tropic waters.

As one scientist put it "The more energy you add to a system, the more chaotic the events in the system - like a pot of water going from simmer to full boil." That sure seems to fit with observations over my lifetime. Note that none of the above mentions politics, it is just describing what we are seeing/measuring. Politics only gets involved when we have to decide if we should do anything about what is happening. I will not go there if you don't.

I should have clarified that what is now England was that much warmer. But:

quote:

We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation received on Earth. For similar reasons, the penultimate interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high-latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene, warming was not uniform across the globe.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/penultimate-interglacial-period

Edit to include:

Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F hotter during the time of the Roman Empire - the warmest it has been for the past 2,000 years, study shows
Roman Empire coincided with warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Med
But the climate later turned colder and likely ended the Empire's golden period
Scientists studied amoeba species in marine sediments to reveal climate history

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8555871/Mediterranean-Sea-3-6-F-hotter-Roman-Empire-study-claims.html

You should also read about Dogger Land.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).

The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.

quote:

It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

Yikes. From a COVID-19 debate to a Global Warming debate.

And guess who wins in the end: Jeff Bezos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).

The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.

Global Warming, now there is a cesspool for politics. But if it weren't for global warming, the Earth, or at least most of it, would be covered by about 2 miles of ice. The Earth was previously warmer by about 4 degrees C nearly 2000 years ago . . .

Well, there's an assertion that I have never seen before. Got a reliable source for that? Who was taking temperature readings in the days before thermometers? And worldwide stats? Sure, studying geographic evidence in digs can indicate some things about past climates, but accurate enough to say a given temperature range? And if they say ice cores from the Antarctic have the evidence that the air was 4ºC warmer, I will have to ask what ice would have been possible then - the Antarctic is already suffering huge losses of ice at current temperatures.

The evidence of warming is not just in current temperature studies of air and ocean, but in behaviour of storms, wildfires and movement of insect/bird/animal/fish populations toward formerly cold regions they could not survive in. And ocean currents that reliably flowed for thousands of years are suddenly ceasing movement as the melting ice of the cold regions stops the northward movement of tropic waters.

As one scientist put it "The more energy you add to a system, the more chaotic the events in the system - like a pot of water going from simmer to full boil." That sure seems to fit with observations over my lifetime. Note that none of the above mentions politics, it is just describing what we are seeing/measuring. Politics only gets involved when we have to decide if we should do anything about what is happening. I will not go there if you don't.

I should have clarified that what is now England was that much warmer. But:

quote:

We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation received on Earth. For similar reasons, the penultimate interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high-latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene, warming was not uniform across the globe.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/penultimate-interglacial-period

Edit to include:

Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F hotter during the time of the Roman Empire - the warmest it has been for the past 2,000 years, study shows
Roman Empire coincided with warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Med
But the climate later turned colder and likely ended the Empire's golden period
Scientists studied amoeba species in marine sediments to reveal climate history

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8555871/Mediterranean-Sea-3-6-F-hotter-Roman-Empire-study-claims.html

You should also read about Dogger Land.

You're talking about the natural variability of climate. That's always been present. Human caused climate change is the issue, and that is comparatively recent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.

How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).

The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.

Global Warming, now there is a cesspool for politics. But if it weren't for global warming, the Earth, or at least most of it, would be covered by about 2 miles of ice. The Earth was previously warmer by about 4 degrees C nearly 2000 years ago . . .

Well, there's an assertion that I have never seen before. Got a reliable source for that? Who was taking temperature readings in the days before thermometers? And worldwide stats? Sure, studying geographic evidence in digs can indicate some things about past climates, but accurate enough to say a given temperature range? And if they say ice cores from the Antarctic have the evidence that the air was 4ºC warmer, I will have to ask what ice would have been possible then - the Antarctic is already suffering huge losses of ice at current temperatures.

The evidence of warming is not just in current temperature studies of air and ocean, but in behaviour of storms, wildfires and movement of insect/bird/animal/fish populations toward formerly cold regions they could not survive in. And ocean currents that reliably flowed for thousands of years are suddenly ceasing movement as the melting ice of the cold regions stops the northward movement of tropic waters.

As one scientist put it "The more energy you add to a system, the more chaotic the events in the system - like a pot of water going from simmer to full boil." That sure seems to fit with observations over my lifetime. Note that none of the above mentions politics, it is just describing what we are seeing/measuring. Politics only gets involved when we have to decide if we should do anything about what is happening. I will not go there if you don't.

I should have clarified that what is now England was that much warmer. But:

quote:

We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation received on Earth. For similar reasons, the penultimate interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high-latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene, warming was not uniform across the globe.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/penultimate-interglacial-period

Edit to include:

Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F hotter during the time of the Roman Empire - the warmest it has been for the past 2,000 years, study shows
Roman Empire coincided with warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Med
But the climate later turned colder and likely ended the Empire's golden period
Scientists studied amoeba species in marine sediments to reveal climate history

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8555871/Mediterranean-Sea-3-6-F-hotter-Roman-Empire-study-claims.html

You should also read about Dogger Land.

You're talking about the natural variability of climate. That's always been present. Human caused climate change is the issue, and that is comparatively recent.

The difficulty with these debates about science, scientific understanding and whatever controversial subject you focus on, is that scientific language is necessarily imprecise when it comes to absolute fact. This is necessary because scientists are always inherently always changing, learning, growing, contradicting and disagreeing with each other.

It's of course very easy to politicise the precise language of "theory" and 'prediction" when aiming to discount something that is generally and overwhelming accepted in scientific circles. By the time something is called a "theory" in science it has been examined and torn apart by numerous experts who all looked it it from as many angles as possible to aim to verify if it was really happening, if the mechanisms are as postulated and if the outcomes are really as stated.

If you wan to create some doubt for political reasons you can always find some alternate viewpoints from seemingly creditable sources. Those sources can be checked now, thanks to the internet, and when they are it's very interesting how quickly alternate dissenting views on things like human caused climate change fail to stand up to scrutiny.

People will believe what they want to believe, still. What has always mystified me is why people try to discount human caused climate change so quickly and vehemently? Why? Environmental controls, alternate energy, and reductions in personnel and industrial carbon emissions can only help us even if you have doubts about their effect, so why the disagreements? Environmental protection particularly is being revoked at an alarming rate in the states while we're all distracted by the pandemic and other political issues. We should be watching more carefully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworthy understanding, and my experience, is that science works whether you believe it it or not. Recent world events have not dissuaded me from that notion.

quote:

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/how-doctors-make-impossible-decisions-as-coronavirus-surges-cvd/

quote:

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/how-doctors-make-impossible-decisions-as-coronavirus-surges-cvd/

quote:

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/how-doctors-make-impossible-decisions-as-coronavirus-surges-cvd/

quote:

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

It differs quite significantly.

Patients from Italy were transferred not only within Italy, but to Germany as well. The French had some Covid cases sent to Germany and Switzerland also.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-germany-italy/germany-treats-first-italians-as-coronavirus-care-crosses-borders-idUKKBN21B2GR

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Italy is smaller than some states. The logistics of moving someone that distance when they are that is not good. Plus the taxi is a terrible ride.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/how-doctors-make-impossible-decisions-as-coronavirus-surges-cvd/

quote:

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

It differs quite significantly.

Patients from Italy were transferred not only within Italy, but to Germany as well. The French had some Covid cases sent to Germany and Switzerland also.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-germany-italy/germany-treats-first-italians-as-coronavirus-care-crosses-borders-idUKKBN21B2GR

warspite1

I am referring to where the article states that the doctors in Texas are going to have to start deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't. This is what happened in both Italy and Spain.

I am quite sure some were transferred, but clearly not enough to stop the heart-breaking decision to allow some to die.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Italy is smaller than some states. The logistics of moving someone that distance when they are that is not good. Plus the taxi is a terrible ride.

warspite1

But there are parts of Texas where the case count and death toll remains low. Plus I am not sure Italy to Germany is necessarily longer than some parts of Texas to some neighbouring states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/how-doctors-make-impossible-decisions-as-coronavirus-surges-cvd/

quote:

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

It differs quite significantly.

Patients from Italy were transferred not only within Italy, but to Germany as well. The French had some Covid cases sent to Germany and Switzerland also.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-germany-italy/germany-treats-first-italians-as-coronavirus-care-crosses-borders-idUKKBN21B2GR

warspite1

I am referring to where the article states that the doctors in Texas are going to have to start deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't. This is what happened in both Italy and Spain.

I am quite sure some were transferred, but clearly not enough to stop the heart-breaking decision to allow some to die.

quote:

I am referring to where the article states that the doctors in Texas are going to have to start deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't. This is what happened in both Italy and Spain.

I am quite sure some were transferred, but clearly not enough to stop the heart-breaking decision to allow some to die.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Italy is smaller than some states. The logistics of moving someone that distance when they are that is not good. Plus the taxi is a terrible ride.

warspite1

But there are parts of Texas where the case count and death toll remains low. Plus I am not sure Italy to Germany is necessarily longer than some parts of Texas to some neighbouring states.

[image]https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr02/2012/11/16/17/enhanced-buzz-30741-1353103917-14.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a map as well:

Italy is about 2.2 times smaller than Texas.
Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Italy is approximately 301,340 sq km, making Italy 44.44% the size of Texas. Meanwhile, the population of Texas is ~25.1 million people (37.0 million more people live in Italy). We have positioned the outline of Texas near the middle of Italy.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/italy/texas-usa

Italy is between the size of Arizona and new Mexico.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a map as well:

Italy is about 2.2 times smaller than Texas.
Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Italy is approximately 301,340 sq km, making Italy 44.44% the size of Texas. Meanwhile, the population of Texas is ~25.1 million people (37.0 million more people live in Italy). We have positioned the outline of Texas near the middle of Italy.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/italy/texas-usa

Italy is between the size of Arizona and new Mexico.

warspite1

Not sure what you are showing here. The biggest outbreak in Texas is in Harris county. How far is it from there to another large Texan city that has not been as badly affected or another state where the medical services are under less pressure?

If you are saying distance is the reason patients can't be transferred then fine. I personally don't believe that, but then I don't know. My guess, is that, as with Italy and Spain, there might be other reasons and while there is capacity to move some, if hospitals get swamped (as happened in Lombardy) then it becomes a whole lot more difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a map as well:

Italy is about 2.2 times smaller than Texas.
Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Italy is approximately 301,340 sq km, making Italy 44.44% the size of Texas. Meanwhile, the population of Texas is ~25.1 million people (37.0 million more people live in Italy). We have positioned the outline of Texas near the middle of Italy.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/italy/texas-usa

Italy is between the size of Arizona and new Mexico.

warspite1

Not sure what you are showing here. The biggest outbreak in Texas is in Harris county. How far is it from there to another large Texan city that has not been as badly affected or another state where the medical services are under less pressure?

If you are saying distance is the reason patients can't be transferred then fine. I personally don't believe that, but then I don't know. My guess, is that, as with Italy and Spain, there might be other reasons and while there is capacity to move some, if hospitals get swamped (as happened in Lombardy) then it becomes a whole lot more difficult.