Currently Online 
LurkerJ said:
But even the experts are telling you we're trying to flatten the curve rather than stop the spreading. The same number will be infected in both scenarios, more people will manage to survive if the curve is flattened. Flattening the curve will NOT alter the course of the disease or change the total number of infected individual. Almost all of those who will get their lungs scarred by the virus will get their lungs scarred in both scenarios (flattening the curve or letting it peak), almost all of those who will end up damaged kidneys will get damaged kidneys regardless of how flat the curve is, so on so forth. The ONLY medical intervention that could benefit from flattening the curve as of now is artificial ventilation, which only helps a SUBSET of people and mostly the elderly. One could argue flattening the curve would buy us some time to get more ventilators and hospital space ready but at what cost? The coronavirus and the rhinovirus have been causing the common cold for so long, the flu has been around since forever, no effective medication was ever effective against those. Humans are terrible at making medications against viruses, but sometimes brilliant at making vaccines. How long until one is ready though? |
I think you're confusing mitigation with flattening the curve. to flatten it enough so the health care system can cope would mean to drawn it out over a decade or more.
https://medium.com/@joschabach/flattening-the-curve-is-a-deadly-delusion-eea324fe9727
The hammer and dance is what we're looking at as the best strategy: (but called flattening the curve by the media, better soundbite)
https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/255968-analysis-beating-coronavirus-covid-19-hammer-and-dance
Currently we're in the suppression phase to get the spread under control. Then it becomes a matter of managing it until widespread vaccines are available. It is not the goal to flatten the curve so it can spread through the entire population while the healthcare system tries to keep up. That would take far too long. The goal is to minimize infections and work out a balance between getting on with life while keeping the virus under our thumb until a vaccine can end it.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/6/21161234/coronavirus-covid-19-science-outbreak-ends-endemic-vaccine
A vaccine will take between 9 and 18 months, depending on success and red tape obstacles. There is also promising research in anti bodies that can fight this virus, however while that can be ready much sooner, it will also be a lot more costly to produce than a vaccine. Thus it's still necessary to keep the nr of infected low.
The same number will be infected in both scenarios
Absolutely not. If that happens we will have failed completely.
