SvennoJ said:
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.
|
Thank you for the articles. I did read them, however, they're not bullet proof, and they don't mirror what's happening on the grounds, and in many cases they contradict each other as well. Not dismissing all of them, but I scratched my head many times reading them.
The Medium article, for example, talks about fatality rate and those who will become critically ill rate and uses the most extreme of the reported numbers, when you and I agreed earlier that the reported number of cases and most numbers surrounding covid19 are inaccurate because the confirmed number of cases remains unknown, the author also says that the critically ill covid19 patients need 4 weeks of assisted ventilation? when the most generous of numbers regarding that hovered around 1 week, and 4 days on average. And then you read further the author admits that:
"My curves are not correct! My back-of-the-envelope calculation is not a proper simulation, or a good model of what’s going on either. Don’t cite it as such!"
and then he goes to say that the point he is trying to make has nothing to do with the numbers he used? and that China has successfully eradicated the virus? according to whom? according to China? who is barring of the CDC and just kicked out reporters from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post and censoring the hell out of the story.
As for the Rappler article, it's 2 days old, but that's a lot of time when it comes to covid19. it starts by including Japan as a success story and how it managed to avoid lock down but now Tokyo is about to declare national emergency and start a lock-down, this is me just being nit picky though. The more questionable bits of the article starts with "If you hammer the coronavirus, within a few weeks you’ve controlled it and you’re in much better shape to address it" and that "The time needed for the hammer is weeks, not months." But then the author goes on to use Wahun success story as evidence to back up his numbers, but we all know that Wahun was locked down for two months... and it wasn't the European style kind of lockdown, and this goes back to what I said earlier. Everyone is on lock-down but each country's approach is different, and not co-ordinated, and isn't happening simultaneously, and that is of course, if we assume China is telling the truth. Still an interesting article to read, but it places too much faith on how theoretically all of those ideas will translate perfectly into reality, and I have already talked about why the lack of international standardized approach to the problem and how 2 months (or 8 weeks) is "too long of a period of time for most of the globe.
Again, not dismissing the importance of keeping the infectivity rate as low as possible, just questioning how that can happen without wrecking the economy especially that we haven't seen a single international simultaneous step being taken and everyone reacting unilaterally.