In ‘simple-math’, if you live in a urban zone of 300,000 people....there’s probably three-to-five hospitals in that area and maybe 4,000 beds (total).
So imagine having a small group of 3,000 folks a week infected, and 6-percent (that’s the general number for ultra-extreme cases) of them requiring hospitalization, so you need 180 beds. It’s not a problem to fill that order.
Four weeks into this, your weekly count is now up to 10,000 (meaning you need 600 beds).
By the 9nd week of this, you have 40,000 a week on the new infected list, and need 2,400 beds.
You can figure 14 to 20 days for each admitted person for the extra care. So your bed situation won’t be able to handle the infection rate for the serious folks and you will start turning away folks around the 10th week of this (if the infection rate isn’t cornered or lessened). Death rates then increase.
Folks will get 5 days and get kicked out. But otherwise reasonable numbers.
Do it again but this time, at 9 weeks 40,000 per week in 300,000 i don’t think is possible. It would add up to more than the population. Somewhere around week 4 things should start to level off a bit as the virus has trouble finding virgin hosts. Then what do the numbers look like?
At the point where you need 180 beds perhaps what you mean is ventilators because a bed to die in ain’t real helpful.
this is just more panic and crisis.....
You’re right. It’s “simple” math. Bereft of anything but numbers.
It won’t play out that way. If local hospitals become inundated, the sick will be exported to areas not so heavily stressed, exporting the virus in the process.