(Total Views: 647)
Posted On: 05/11/2020 6:28:52 PM
Post# of 155026
vicr,
The data comes from a Richardson et-al paper and is comparing apples to apples:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184
The numbers cited in Patterson paper refer to patients that where in ventilators. The 10 were critical: "patients had significant pre-existing comorbidities and were receiving intensive care treatment including mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen for ARDS".
Therefore, I believe that the comparison is correct. Some papers in China mention 98% whereas some in the U.K. mention 65%. The problem is, the condition of the patients varies substancialy (the definition of severe/critical), however Patterson paper refers to Montefiori (in N.Y.) same as the Richardson paper (patients in N.Y. area). So is a good comparison imo.
The data comes from a Richardson et-al paper and is comparing apples to apples:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184
Quote:
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
The numbers cited in Patterson paper refer to patients that where in ventilators. The 10 were critical: "patients had significant pre-existing comorbidities and were receiving intensive care treatment including mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen for ARDS".
Therefore, I believe that the comparison is correct. Some papers in China mention 98% whereas some in the U.K. mention 65%. The problem is, the condition of the patients varies substancialy (the definition of severe/critical), however Patterson paper refers to Montefiori (in N.Y.) same as the Richardson paper (patients in N.Y. area). So is a good comparison imo.
(0)
(0)
