3 ms·
I read some articles that did the math on that, but I can't easily find them now. IIRC it was an order of magnitude difference - i.e. flattening the curve enoug
by PeterisP 7y ago
I read some articles that did the math on that, but I can't easily find them now. IIRC it was an order of magnitude difference - i.e. flattening the curve enough to meet capacity would require to stretch it out to something 10 years (certainly an unreasonable goal), so flattening it out over a single year would be something like 10 times over the current capacity. It's hard to estimate how much reasonable actions can increase capacity - 20%? 50%? 100%? But nowhere close to 10x increase.
- kazagistar 7y agoAgain, irrelevant. Capacity increase is lives saved. Flattening the curve is a multiplier on that, and is thus also lives saved. "Enough" doesn't matter as much as the fact that "more" scales linearly. Every bed of capacity you add is at least one life saved, even if you never get close to enough.
- jopsen 7y agoflattening the curve also gives us more time to come up with a vaccine. If we're talking about high casualty numbers, stretching it a year or two, while we wait for a vaccine _might_ be feasible.