4 ms·
Incrementally flattening the curve does save incrementally many lives. It’s taken hold over “lock it down” because it rings better and is factual. You can acc
by SamReidHughes 7y ago
Incrementally flattening the curve does save incrementally many lives. It’s taken hold over “lock it down” because it rings better and is factual. You can accomplish something individually by staying inside instead of being fatalistic because nobody else will do it, and it isn’t just a platitude .
- dirtyid 7y agoIncremental is not a proportional response to exponential. Compared to a lock down, you're not saving incrementally more lives but allowing for exponentially more death. The only rationale for it is to slowly acclimatize the population to embrace more drastic action, i.e. panic management. Even stringent, well organized quarantines in Chinese provinces with less infection is running 6+ weeks with full compliance. Partial compliance means those who adhere will be stuck inside for a long time, it's not tenable even assuming the curve can be flattened in a sensible time frame in first place, which I don't believe it is. Basically we're dragging past the point where shutdown is a viable option with half measures, which will only leave to excess fatalities. Obviously I'm not an expert and hope I'm wrong.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoIf the system is out of ventilators and you keep from infecting a person who’d need a ventilator, that’s one death prevented. If everybody is going to catch it, you want to maximize ventilator-hours, i.e. delay as much as possible or flatten the curve. This makes it beneficial conduct to avoid social contact whether other people are doing it or not.