3 ms·

> This will spread to a large number of people. It's too late for containment, you can only hope to flatten the curve. Follow the logic through. South Korea i

by zaroth 7y ago

> This will spread to a large number of people. It's too late for containment, you can only hope to flatten the curve. Follow the logic through. South Korea is detecting ~100 cases per day on top of a total of 7,700 and 66 deaths. Total population is 50 million people. How long do you shut down the economy over a disease where you are detecting 100 cases per day with a CFR of 0.8%? Seems like this is a perfect example of the curve being too flat.

arpa 7y ago
Unless you simultaneously ramp up your healthcare resources (what China did), even as "low" as 100 cases/day still has very real potential to go exponential (R0=2.5), overwhelm your healthcare, and kill 10% of our population if not more (especially if your population is aged).
- zaroth 7y ago
  I hear that, what I'm saying is, follow that logic through... If it's crucial to maintain strict protocols even during a rate of only 100 new cases/day, that means these protocols stay in place roughly... indefinitely. Counting individual cases and deaths in a country of 300 million is nonsensical. You could do the same thing with the flu and you'd hit 20,000 deaths a year and you'd destroy the economy in the process. IMO, the solution is best preparing to treat the number of people who do become severely ill from it, and getting the rest of the country fully back to work as quickly as possible. Although I disagree strongly on the "kill 10% of your population" bit, which is just fear-mongering, it's kind of besides the point.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    >Although I disagree strongly on the "kill 10% of your population" bit, which is just fear-mongering, it's kind of besides the point. If every case went untreated, 10% is a reasonable guess about what the death rate would be. Unchecked growth would lead to almost every case going untreated. That's the penalty for allowing the number of active cases to rise above five times the number of open beds/ventilators.

by zaroth 7y ago

arpa 7y ago

Unless you simultaneously ramp up your healthcare resources (what China did), even as "low" as 100 cases/day still has very real potential to go exponential (R0=2.5), overwhelm your healthcare, and kill 10% of our population if not more (especially if your population is aged).

zaroth 7y ago
I hear that, what I'm saying is, follow that logic through... If it's crucial to maintain strict protocols even during a rate of only 100 new cases/day, that means these protocols stay in place roughly... indefinitely. Counting individual cases and deaths in a country of 300 million is nonsensical. You could do the same thing with the flu and you'd hit 20,000 deaths a year and you'd destroy the economy in the process. IMO, the solution is best preparing to treat the number of people who do become severely ill from it, and getting the rest of the country fully back to work as quickly as possible. Although I disagree strongly on the "kill 10% of your population" bit, which is just fear-mongering, it's kind of besides the point.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >Although I disagree strongly on the "kill 10% of your population" bit, which is just fear-mongering, it's kind of besides the point. If every case went untreated, 10% is a reasonable guess about what the death rate would be. Unchecked growth would lead to almost every case going untreated. That's the penalty for allowing the number of active cases to rise above five times the number of open beds/ventilators.