I'm not sure the number of infected is larger or smaller...because I think it will become endemic. I don't think the curve is to scale because no one knows accurate numbers. It is purely illustrative of a principle.

But it does appear to "illustrate" that they expect to lengthen the period significantly.

NT

The numbers I've read is that total hospital capacity is around 1 million beds in our country of 300 million, with about 30% free at any time (so 300k beds might be free right now).

If 1% of the population catches the virus today (3 million people) - 10-20% of them will have a severe reaction that needs hospitalization a week from now. That right there is already 300k+ beds needed. If this is all evenly spread out, (nice and even distribution of the sick based on capacity in their area) this doesn't sound so bad I guess.

If 2% of the population catches the virus today, that's 600k+ beds needed. Now we're running out of beds - people are getting turned away, hospitals are over-stuffed, doctors are nurses are overworked and basically... the end result... is that mortality for this and other conditions (because patients with other conditions may now be getting less attention/getting turned away) is higher.

If 5% of the population catches the virus, many of that 1.5 million who get severe symptoms will never get any professional medical attention. Mortality will be even higher (not that low end 1%, but because the system can't handle it, it will be way higher).

The overall number of people affected by the virus may or may not be the same, but what we DO know is that people dying just from being turned away is lower when we flatten the curve. People needing treatment for things other than coronavirus don't get turned away and face life-threatening delays, either. All of that has been happening in Italy. People who ordinarily could've pulled through ended up dying due to scarce equipment and personnel. This is apparently taking quite a toll on medical personnel, since they're having to let some people die when under other circumstances they could have at least tried to save them.

Flatten the curve.

Shutting down the economy for 9 months to a year could be devastating. And I suspect unsustainable.

Italy's had a situation where people died at home, and their families struggled to find mortuaries to take them. One family waited something like 36 hours. There've been worse reports out of Wuhan. Hospitals AND mortuaries are overwhelmed, and it freaking wrecks your society to go through things like that.

Weathering an economic crisis for 6-9 months is bad, no doubt. But if we let a spike happen, we're in uncharted territory -- culturally, psychologically, and many other -lys -- and I don't think anyone knows what economic effects that'd have.

That’s what is the problem in pkaces like Italy A hospital could have 50 respirators 100 need it now all at once
Some will not get it.
China same it came all at once and did not have the facilities
Prolong it out for months the turnover will allow treatment for many more

And, with some risk analysis, the testing window might be shortened. That could end the curve and save lives.

I'm sure we have top people working on it. Top. People.

In that regard, flattening the curve can reduce cases if we get effective treatments or a vaccine.

If the medical system crashes we have no care givers or facilities to treat the sick. By flattening the curve you lengthen the time frame of the epidemic but you allow the healthcare system to survive which allows for people to continue to get care. The virus is going to run a course before it burns out, we are extending that season.

(relative to expectations)

No, you will not see "more people infected". Because:

First, disclaimer: I am not a medical person, epidemiologist, or any other credentialed person. I *am* a computer scientist who has a reputation for catching on to new concepts quickly.

My take:
EVERYONE will be exposed. (with possibly small exceptions in very unusual circumstances, like maybe a small commune in the wilds of Montana.)

All of those susceptible will be "infected". According to reports, a high percentage of people "infected", do not develop significant symptoms. (I'll leave it to medicos to debate whether those actually can be called "infected". If the virus gets into one's system and plays around a bit before it goes away, that to me is "infection", even if you don't notice it much.)

The only thing that will stop infections from happening is a vaccine. That is a year and a half away at best, according to story I heard on NPR.

The only thing short of a vaccine that will reduce death:

1) more effective rapid treatment. Yeah that could happen but it's a wish and a prayer at the moment.

2) flattening the curve. Giving the medical system a chance to "catch up" so services and people are not overwhelmed.

That's it. But no, I do not believe you will reduce infections by "getting it over with quickly". There is no "getting over it quickly".

illustration to help you grasp the concept.


It's entirely possible that flattening the curve drops the line to close to zero very early on, because the system has the capacity to develop an effective vaccine.

That means shutting down the economy for the better part of a year. I don't think that is sustainable.

It's entirely possible that this event will cause a major inflection in the global economy. Whether it recovers afterward is an open question, IMO.

See China * according to officials dramatically slowed there
Of course we to understand they perhaps are not reporting correctly
But 7 of their latest cases have been imported from Europe

*But also see freedomUSA I don’t think a true quarantine like theirs is sustainable here also
I think masks became mandatory there again I don’t see it happening here

1 - Stock pile enough beds and ventilators to handle an un-mitigated rhespiratory pandemic.

2 - Require minimal training in managing ventilators of every MD. Or every hospital MD. Or... or... you get the idea.

3 - Tell people over 70 and people with underlying conditions to do everything they can to be one of the 30% to 40% who never get sick.

4 - Everyone else goes about their normal lives. Analagous to when some of us were young and were sent to friends houses to get the measles or mumps so we didn't get them when we were older and they were more dangerous.

What do you think?

tia
las