2 ms·

Not exactly. Looking at Italy as a case study we need to limit the spread of this virus only for the reason of reducing stress on the medical industry at any g

Not exactly. Looking at Italy as a case study we need to limit the spread of this virus only for the reason of reducing stress on the medical industry at any given single moment while accepting everyone is likely to encounter this thing eventually. Aside from slowing the rate of transmission the guidance, from the medical experts, says to treat this no differently than the flu. The reality is that this virus will be everywhere because it is at least as transmissible as the flu but with more benign symptoms and a longer incubation period. The incubation period for the flu is generally 5-7 days but the early data from China was suggesting an incubation period of 10-14 days for corvid19. Both of those numbers are variable upon a given snapshot and environmental factors. On the other hand the earlier people encounter this thing means the earlier a population can build the necessary mass immunity resistance.

hanche 7y ago
This. What is urgently needed is to flatten the curve. Maybe we can't reduce the total number of people who get it, but if we can spread out the infection over a longer time period, we may be able to avoid overwhelming the health care system, to the benefit of all.
eagsalazar2 7y ago
That's a good point and highlights a possible misalignment of interests between individuals and the community: me intentionally getting it now, before there are many cases might help me and my family but speeding up spread by doing so might increase the size of the peak for everyone else. Related question: when I imagine the spread I feel like fast moving spread will burn itself out more quickly and completely. But if it slows down too much, might it become like the flu where if only 1/3 of the people get it in a given year we never hit that critical point where everyone is immune and it peters out within a season, giving it time to mutate and keep reinfecting populations year after year much like the flu does?
- xur17 7y ago
  > me intentionally getting it now, before there are many cases might help me and my family but speeding up spread by doing so might increase the size of the peak for everyone else. It's also possible that we'll identify antiviral treatments, etc that will reduce the impact on our health system / death rate (in which case getting it later would be better).
alkonaut 7y ago
> the medical industry Somehow that term to me is more dystopian than “pandemic”.

hanche 7y ago

This. What is urgently needed is to flatten the curve. Maybe we can't reduce the total number of people who get it, but if we can spread out the infection over a longer time period, we may be able to avoid overwhelming the health care system, to the benefit of all.

eagsalazar2 7y ago

That's a good point and highlights a possible misalignment of interests between individuals and the community: me intentionally getting it now, before there are many cases might help me and my family but speeding up spread by doing so might increase the size of the peak for everyone else. Related question: when I imagine the spread I feel like fast moving spread will burn itself out more quickly and completely. But if it slows down too much, might it become like the flu where if only 1/3 of the people get it in a given year we never hit that critical point where everyone is immune and it peters out within a season, giving it time to mutate and keep reinfecting populations year after year much like the flu does?

xur17 7y ago
> me intentionally getting it now, before there are many cases might help me and my family but speeding up spread by doing so might increase the size of the peak for everyone else. It's also possible that we'll identify antiviral treatments, etc that will reduce the impact on our health system / death rate (in which case getting it later would be better).

alkonaut 7y ago

> the medical industry Somehow that term to me is more dystopian than “pandemic”.