4 ms·
> 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 e
by 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 agoIt 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.