Posted on 04/14/2020 8:21:31 AM PDT by Hojczyk
The theory behind curve-flattening is not that the virus will mysteriously disappear while we are all hunkered down, and we will emerge when it is safe to come out. That won’t happen. The point of curve-flattening is to prolong the epidemic, making it last longer than it otherwise would, as you can see in the curve-flattening diagrams. That way, more or less the same number will get sick and the same percentage will die, with one exception: our hospitals will not be overwhelmed by a crush of COVID-19 cases, and so ICU rooms and so on will be available for those who need them. That was the point of the shutdowns–to flatten the curve by stretching out the epidemic.
We know now, the COVID-19 virus was grossly overestimated, at least with respect to the demand its victims would place on hospitals. Weirdly, it is not easy to find a definitive figure for the number of hospitalizations to date. The Centers for Disease Control estimates, if you do the arithmetic, that as of April 4 around 41,250 people were hospitalized due to COVID-19, which seems too low. The COVID Tracking Project pegs it at 62,673 as of April 13. Does that sound like a lot of hospitalizations? As usual, the numbers need a context.
During last year’s flu season, according to the CDC, 490,561 people in the U.S. were hospitalized due to the seasonal flu virus. The prior year, it was 810,000 flu hospitalizations. This explains why, as we noted here, America’s hospitals have not been overwhelmed by the number of Wuhan flu sufferers, not even in New York City.
Once again, government officials are making decisions with catastrophic effects on many millions of lives, on the basis of models that have proved to be wrong. The shutdowns should end tomorrow.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
How about policies where people live on top of each other should just maybe be different from policies where they don’t? A national or statewide lockdown is punishing the whole population because one area has an unhealthy lifestyle.
No, we prefer that individuals and businesses make their own decisions. Individual planning beats central planning every time. People and businesses will innovate and find successful ways to avoid the virus while participating in the economy and society. And people will be able to judge whether they are truly vulnerable or not and how much risk they should take. A one size fits all policy is absurd.
You are being ridiculous. This whole fiasco has been mis handled and still some cannot see.....
Really? Why don't you explain the "LIE" part?
” national or statewide lockdown is punishing the whole population because one area has an unhealthy lifestyle.”
Valid point. It is the Governors responsibility what to lock and where to lock down. President Trump hinted he has the power to do that. State rights is the question.
I personally don’t think I should be in stay at home. I do not live in the city, we only have a gas station and dollar general where I live at. Nobody enforces it here where I live at.
Butttt what keeps a person who does not live in that city from driving into the City if they are not on stay at home orders?
Do we need to put up road blocks around the city and check permission slips like China?
I do not know the answer to that, not sure if their is a good answer.
This is why I think true fatality rate is 0.1%, just like the flu.
What is that BS chart?
My intended meaning as that the exaggeration of the danger of this Wuhanic Plague is for an agenda, not anyone's safety.
Hi ya, flubro... Glad to see you’re still around and the virus didn’t get ya after all. :)
And I agree!
Absolutely nothing ridiculous about that. It's called reality based upon facts.
Remember it was the states that closed down everything. In some states it was not necessary. In some states it was only necessary to close down regions of that state. But panic and perception, no leader wants to be seen as inept, made quick decisions. So yes bad decisions were probably made. As the old saying goes, hindsight is closer to 20/20 than foresight, at least in appearances. I say in appearances, because we see what happened with the decisions made, but we don't see what would have happened if other decisions were made.
John is wrong here in assuming that "the same percentage will die" which confuses cause and effect. Without flattening the curve, hospitals would be overwhelmed and consequently a greater percentage would die.
Some viruses have incubation periods of many weeks. Polio can incubate for up to 40 days before lowering the boom.
As of today not one single person on the entire planet can scientifically prove what this virus actually does to humans.
So. What should a wise leader do?
“interaction”?
And what do you calculate as the anti-derivative of the present curve as opposed to the originally projected curve?
Only demagogues say the danger was non existent. No one else. It's a straw man, pure and simple.
His point? We survived a nasty flu season a couple years ago with plenty of facilities and manpower.
My point? If we're looking at 2-2.2 million deaths, shut it down. Even one tenth, 200k? Isolate the vulnerable, practice good hygiene, and get back to work.
The shutdown isn't justified. It doesn't have to be either, or.
...and in a couple weeks, we'll start to worry about food shortages.
I have no doubt Dems are plotting to make sure there are food shortages.
Every time I see pictures of the NY Subway, or note that local buses are still running, I suspect that it doesn't matter whether some are inconvenienced...and a great deal whether others are.
Actually, this isn’t some math exercise here. You need to look at the actual curves with and without flattening, and note that the area under the curves are the same.
Now, there is an issue, but it isn’t with the discussion of curve flattening.
If you ignore vaccine, and ignore a cure or a better treatment, then nothing we are doing will reduce the number of people who get infected, or the expected death count. (assuming we avoid overwhelming hospitals, which raises death counts with those who could have been treated).
If you locked down completely, you could “kill” the virus, but we are not doing that. Absent that, the virus will die off when we reach herd immunity, and we will reach that when we allow x% of the people to become infected and recover. x doesn’t change, so if it takes 160 million americans to reach herd immunity, we will end up with 160 million infections, and the expected number of deaths.
BUT, we WILL get a cure, so if we push out the curve, at some point people getting sick will no longer die because we will give them the cure. And of course, eventually we’ll have a vaccine, reducing the population that could get sick.
The reason the author is correct is because we are learning that the actual hospitalization needs are lower than expected. This has nothing to do with “how quickly” people got sick. We are finding that our estimate of hospitalizations was almost double reality — which means we only needed to flatten the curve half as much.
Remember, New York CIty did not start their isolation until they already were way past the mass spread. They had to physically block off New Rochelle, and they hadn’t shut down anybody using the subway until other states were closed.
So, the New York result is really a good example of NOT flattening the curve until after you know you are in trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.