That is a false impression-from what sources are you getting it?
This comes back to flattening the curve and what you feel social distancing is accomplishing.
I actually have said many, many times that we needed to do what we did with all the social distancing because we didn’t know how bad it would be and what we did worked. I really do understand that what we did was a huge help in keeping things from getting way out of control. So no, I’m not missing that aspect. It may have saved lives, but only because we didn’t overrun medical systems and kill people that couldn’t get treatment. That thing about flattening the curve, to me (and others, look at the cite GIGObuster provided) is that the same number of people are going to die. It is just a matter of over what period of time.
In that sense, I’m not asking for many more to be at risk. They are going to get this one way or another. Social distancing is about not overrunning the medical services. We have seen we have margin on that. So let’s open up and watch carefully. For those who say we can’t risk infecting others, I assume they have a different concept of what flattening the curve means. Which is why I’m trying to understand what they think it means.
Anyone calling for a social safety net and isn’t willing to pay taxes to support is, yes, a hypocrite. Of course they are. Paying taxes and supporting each other through social programs is what we should be doing. Saying that everyone else should be paying to support these social programs when you aren’t willing to put in your share is… hypocritical, isn’t it?
See GIGObusters post/cite.
From that cite:
"A flatter curve, on the other hand, assumes the same number of people ultimately get infected, but over a longer period of time. A slower infection rate means a less stressed health care system, fewer hospital visits on any given day and fewer sick people being turned away. "
I’ll try to dig up others if you’d like.
Czar ask — I think the OP has clearly stated that in response to my questions that he will NOT take personal responsibility for the policies he advocates. The premise of the thread is that if someone disagrees with him, only THEY should bear personal responsibility for the consequences of their policies.
I asked him, I’ll ask you. What personal responsibility would you like me to take?
Please answer the question about what you think flattening the curve means. We can start with that.
Personal responsibility?
How about “Holy shit! I guess I screwed the pooch when it came to promoting the easing of restrictions, and I feel pretty damn bad about all those that got sick and even worse about all those that died. I apologize.”?
You did see the part about flattening the curve, yes? It was a cite provided by someone else, even.
You said I was under the wrong impression. Do you still think I’m wrong? If so, let’s talk about that. Because it forms the basis for where I go from there. I’m willing to concede to your point above if flattening the curve ends up meaning something different than what I understand it to mean today.
So no, I don’t feel bad that others will get infected because, and here is the really important part, they are going to get infected no matter what we do. I feel horrible that so many are dying and will die. It is awful. But in the end, what we are doing isn’t going to change that based on what we know today. What we can change, is the collateral damage we do while we deal with this disease. And that means trying to keep as many people employed as we can safely do so. We locked down because we needed to because we didn’t know. Now we know and we can open up again.
Knowing isn’t worth jack shit if the knowledge isn’t applied.
Taken simplistically you are correct, that’s what “flattening the curve” means. On the worst case assumptions that we don’t get a vaccine in a useful timeframe and no other factors change the model for the spread of the disease, the area under the flatter curve remains the same, the number of people ultimately infected remains the same. It “just” buys time.
But to say “the only change is how many get sick at any given time” is obviously misleading. Buying that time allows us to develop massive testing capacity and contact tracing protocols that can in principle change the game completely - not just flattening the curve but potentially stopping the spread completely.
And of course it’s not just about the capacity of the healthcare system, buying time may allow us to improve treatment protocols (even without any vaccine) that allow us to reduce mortality rates dramatically.
So to imply that social distancing measures that buy us time are in some sense only delaying the inevitable is completely misguided.
I’m not sure how to read that. I really would like to have an open discussion on this, but it feels that even when I provide a cite for the basis of my argument it is ignored.
If you won’t answer the question about flattening the curve I don’t know where to go from here. If you have a different source for what flattening the curve does, let’s look at it. I’m truly open to a different view.
Learning treatment protocols is a huge benefit to slowing the spread of this, to be sure. That wasn’t lost on me before you mentioned it and I agree. I’ve already heard of ideas that ventilators aren’t necessary in some cases and other treatment options that people are learning about. In short, there probably are some cases that will benefit from the what we learn as we go along.
And you are also right that my entire position is based on a vaccine not happening anytime soon. I hear 12 to 18 months, if we can get one at all. But if one comes sooner, then my position is weakened. however, we aren’t going to get a vaccine next week, I don’t think, so we need to start thinking about what to do in the next month to 6 months. I don’t think we can stay locked down for another few months. So absent a vaccine in that time, what do we do?
The testing capacity piece is a bit of another thing I don’t really see as being helpful in preventing people from getting sick. I’ve heard many experts say that containing this is out of the question. Testing and contact tracing will prevent spikes of outbreaks, but it won’t contain the virus. Without containment, it will still spread to wherever it will spread. Is that different than what you think testing and contract tracing will do? Will they allow us to contain the virus? If so, I’ll have to rethink my ideas.
What you are grossly missing is that more people do die when the curve is not flatter. The numbers of dead people then are not the same. As it seems that you miss constantly: more people do die when a hospital is overwhelmed, and that is more likely when opening economies with little improvements seen regarding masks, testing, contact tracing or with businesses with little regard to the health of workers or customers.
Um… no. Not missing that. I’ve been saying all along that as long as we keep from overwhelming healthcare systems the same number of people die.
But that already took place in the most affected places. You are proposing that we are ready when people like Dr Fauci are reporting that we still need to have twice the amount of testing. So yes, you are missing it still.
Where did we overrun medical system? I hadn’t heard. I knew NY was slammed, but hadn’t heard they were overrun. That is why I posted that they used only 800 out of a possible 2500 beds in the convention center and only 179 people treated on Comfort. I wasn’t aware of any cases where someone who needed treatment was denied because of a lack of resources.
Simplistically, the disease is “contained” only if each infected person infects less than one other person. But even if that never happens, you can slow it down and “flatten the curve” so much that although the total area under the curve is theoretically the same, you do buy enough time to develop a vaccine. It may well be possible to do this with massive testing and contact tracing combined with much less restrictive (but sustained) social distancing habits.
This is just completely wrong. Buying time allows us to improve treatment protocols, it’s not just about capacity.
To be more precise, the impression I got from **cmosdes **is that he does indeed miss it when this late he is still insisting that: “In short, people are going to die no matter what we do.”
Actually, less will die as noted when we flatten the curve with lock downs until we get the proper resources on the ground to check properly how viable the removal of the lock downs will be. Incidentally there are reports already that hospitals in New York were overwhelmed. It is really illogical to not realize that more people do die when because of that overwhelming less people get help for corona or other ailments when a system is over its capacity.
I understand about R0 (although not technically R0 anymore) and how that works.
The concept that we can slow it down until a vaccine is part of where I have a hard time. If we get a vaccine the area under the curve is going to be a lot less. I’m just not sure it is realistic to think we’ll get a vaccine in time to significantly change that area under the curve. In 12 months we’ll likely have been through at least two waves of this, and if the Spanish flu is any indication that comprises the majority of people that will get it. Not all, so we can definitely help some with a vaccine. But 12 months is a long time away and I don’t think we can keep up the lockdown that long. Nor is a vaccine a given. There are reasons to think it won’t happen.
So from a practical standpoint, the number infected in the next 12 months, at least, is a constant. It looks that way to me. Without a vaccine, I just can’t see how we’ll be able to drive that number lower. Testing and contact tracing will help, to some degree, but to me not enough to justify putting millions upon millions out of work.
I agree we will need to keep up vigilance about social distancing and sanitizing for a long time. That, to me, is THE biggest weapon we have right now. I don’t see the tradeoff anymore between putting millions out of work and lives saved. It isn’t that I want to sacrifice people to the almighty economy, so please don’t say that is what I’m saying.
If I’m wrong, and there are a significant number of lives to be saved by a lockdown, we should be doing it and I’d be onboard with doubling, tripling or more the tax rates to pay for it and help those unemployed. But hopefully I’ve explained why I don’t see a significant number of lives being saved and the only different outcome is the number of jobs lost.
I read that article. I didn’t see anywhere in there that they said they were turning patients away. I think I have a different definition of overwhelmed. Why would a hospital let patients go untreated when there were beds available at the convention center or on Comfort? Makes no sense. That isn’t a matter of overwhelming a medical system, that is an inefficient use of available resources.
I’m missing the point when I claim people are going to die no matter what we do? What is your plan to keep people from dying?