4 ms·

I find this article a huge overreaction and at the same time an underestimation of the spread of the coming Corona pandemic. To start with the latter: this vir

I find this article a huge overreaction and at the same time an underestimation of the spread of the coming Corona pandemic. To start with the latter: this virus cannot be contained anymore, at best it can be slowed down. Which means that sooner or later we all will get it. So the extreme measures to isolate yourself from your environment in hopes of not getting contaminated are a waste of time and resources. On the other hand, for normal healthy people, who seem to be the group at which this article is targeted, the infection is not much worse than influenza. Many people don't even realize they have it. "Take the loss" is the only reasonable paragraph in the article.

QUFB 7y ago
> To start with the latter: this virus cannot be contained anymore, at best it can be slowed down. Which means that sooner or later we all will get it. So the extreme measures to isolate yourself from your environment in hopes of not getting contaminated are a waste of time and resources. Not true at all. There is a great benefit to "flattening the curve" to spread out the infections over time, as a high percentage of cases for older individuals will require hospitalization, and there are a limited number of beds available. If reasonable isolation measure are in place, this could happen, as there would be fewer active carriers at any time to transmit the virus to vulnerable populations.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  It seems like a lot of the public/government messaging regarding this virus is ambiguous regarding their policy goals: true containment (like you'd want with Ebola), or simply flatting the rate of spread (as you argue). If the GP was referring to messaging that suggests a goal of true containment, then I think you're both right.
- Seenso 7y ago
  > Not true at all. There is a great benefit to "flattening the curve" to spread out the infections over time, as a high percentage of cases for older individuals will require hospitalization, and there are a limited number of beds available. If reasonable isolation measure are in place, this could happen, as there would be fewer active carriers at any time to transmit the virus to vulnerable populations. Also, delaying infections helps buy time to bring novel treatments to bear on the problem.
dharma1 7y ago
Slowing it down has a big impact on one thing - the availability of hospital beds. I've read that 20% of people who get infected will need ICU treatment. If everyone gets sick within a short period of time, will there be enough hospital beds and ventilators for those who need it? No. Containment is really the only thing at present that is able to slow this thing. Which is the only reason you are seeing the numbers in China starting to drop.
- learc83 7y ago
  >I've read that 20% of people who get infected will need ICU treatment. That number is far too high, and likely comes from an under counting of mild cases. Of the 705 infected on the diamond princess only 43 are or have been in critical condition and the people on board skewed much older than the general population. Also only 705/3200 even got infected despite almost everyone likely being exposed.
danaris 7y ago
If you can delay personal exposure until effective treatments, or even a vaccine, are available, you can reduce or eliminate, respectively, your personal suffering due to the virus. If everyone takes measures to slow the spread, it will reduce strain on the medical system (because fewer people will be sick at any given time), which will mean the people who do get sick suffer less and are less likely to die. Even if it's 100% certain that you will be exposed to the virus, that's a long way from saying the best thing you can do is just give up and get it over with.

QUFB 7y ago

> To start with the latter: this virus cannot be contained anymore, at best it can be slowed down. Which means that sooner or later we all will get it. So the extreme measures to isolate yourself from your environment in hopes of not getting contaminated are a waste of time and resources. Not true at all. There is a great benefit to "flattening the curve" to spread out the infections over time, as a high percentage of cases for older individuals will require hospitalization, and there are a limited number of beds available. If reasonable isolation measure are in place, this could happen, as there would be fewer active carriers at any time to transmit the virus to vulnerable populations.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
It seems like a lot of the public/government messaging regarding this virus is ambiguous regarding their policy goals: true containment (like you'd want with Ebola), or simply flatting the rate of spread (as you argue). If the GP was referring to messaging that suggests a goal of true containment, then I think you're both right.
Seenso 7y ago
> Not true at all. There is a great benefit to "flattening the curve" to spread out the infections over time, as a high percentage of cases for older individuals will require hospitalization, and there are a limited number of beds available. If reasonable isolation measure are in place, this could happen, as there would be fewer active carriers at any time to transmit the virus to vulnerable populations. Also, delaying infections helps buy time to bring novel treatments to bear on the problem.

dharma1 7y ago

Slowing it down has a big impact on one thing - the availability of hospital beds. I've read that 20% of people who get infected will need ICU treatment. If everyone gets sick within a short period of time, will there be enough hospital beds and ventilators for those who need it? No. Containment is really the only thing at present that is able to slow this thing. Which is the only reason you are seeing the numbers in China starting to drop.

learc83 7y ago
>I've read that 20% of people who get infected will need ICU treatment. That number is far too high, and likely comes from an under counting of mild cases. Of the 705 infected on the diamond princess only 43 are or have been in critical condition and the people on board skewed much older than the general population. Also only 705/3200 even got infected despite almost everyone likely being exposed.

danaris 7y ago

If you can delay personal exposure until effective treatments, or even a vaccine, are available, you can reduce or eliminate, respectively, your personal suffering due to the virus. If everyone takes measures to slow the spread, it will reduce strain on the medical system (because fewer people will be sick at any given time), which will mean the people who do get sick suffer less and are less likely to die. Even if it's 100% certain that you will be exposed to the virus, that's a long way from saying the best thing you can do is just give up and get it over with.