5 ms·

Yes, but the goal of social distancing and everything has not been to drastically change the number of people that are ultimately infected, just to slow down th

Yes, but the goal of social distancing and everything has not been to drastically change the number of people that are ultimately infected, just to slow down the rate of spread. The disease is out there now. If you haven't gotten it already, you very likely will eventually.

okaram 7y ago
That depends on how much we slow it down; after a vaccine (in a year), we DO drastically change the number infected. Other countries (South Korea, NZ, Taiwan) have changed the number infected, and will probably end up with much fewer infected. For now, we want to drastically change the outcomes; for example, a month ago, you would have been given chloroquine, which doesn’t help but has side effects; maybe in a month we would know about therapies that reduce mortality and long term effects by a significant percent (or maybe not :) Tons of testing and contact tracing would probably let the US end up with fewer people infected.
- BobbyJo 7y ago
  They've drastically changed the number of infected for now, during a continuing lockdown. Once planes start flying again, and people start travelling again, infections will continue. I agree we want to change outcomes, and flattening the curve is part of that. Delaying infections until better treatments is part of that. But we can't commit to waiting for a vaccine, and we can't commit to waiting for a good treatment. We may never get either.
  - okaram 7y ago
    Why can’t we wait? I’m not arguing we should, but I’m not sure we can’t. What I think is that we sorta can and sorta should; we need to figure out the trade-offs, as best as we can, and decide what measures we want to keep for another year (will vary by country/state/city).
    - BobbyJo 7y ago
      I think most people would rather take the risk than commit to 12-16 more months for a 'possible' way out, one we have no means of quantifying yet.
      - marcinzm 7y ago
        Most probably but a non-trivial percentage would rather wait indefinitely. I'm seeing many liberals who equate opening things up to literal human sacrifice for corporate profit.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Exactly. I have the luxury of some patience here (married and can WFH) and even I’m not excited about forfeiting 1 of my ~50 years of “healthy, active adult lifespan” for limited gain. If you estimate that the lockdown takes 50% of life enjoyment away and each of us gets 50 healthy years of self-directed adult life, a year of lockdown is equivalent to sapping 1% of total life enjoyment. That’s not exactly the same as 1% increase in population deaths in a year, but it’s comparable IMO.

okaram 7y ago

That depends on how much we slow it down; after a vaccine (in a year), we DO drastically change the number infected. Other countries (South Korea, NZ, Taiwan) have changed the number infected, and will probably end up with much fewer infected. For now, we want to drastically change the outcomes; for example, a month ago, you would have been given chloroquine, which doesn’t help but has side effects; maybe in a month we would know about therapies that reduce mortality and long term effects by a significant percent (or maybe not :) Tons of testing and contact tracing would probably let the US end up with fewer people infected.

BobbyJo 7y ago
They've drastically changed the number of infected for now, during a continuing lockdown. Once planes start flying again, and people start travelling again, infections will continue. I agree we want to change outcomes, and flattening the curve is part of that. Delaying infections until better treatments is part of that. But we can't commit to waiting for a vaccine, and we can't commit to waiting for a good treatment. We may never get either.
- okaram 7y ago
  Why can’t we wait? I’m not arguing we should, but I’m not sure we can’t. What I think is that we sorta can and sorta should; we need to figure out the trade-offs, as best as we can, and decide what measures we want to keep for another year (will vary by country/state/city).
  - BobbyJo 7y ago
    I think most people would rather take the risk than commit to 12-16 more months for a 'possible' way out, one we have no means of quantifying yet.
    - marcinzm 7y ago
      Most probably but a non-trivial percentage would rather wait indefinitely. I'm seeing many liberals who equate opening things up to literal human sacrifice for corporate profit.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Exactly. I have the luxury of some patience here (married and can WFH) and even I’m not excited about forfeiting 1 of my ~50 years of “healthy, active adult lifespan” for limited gain. If you estimate that the lockdown takes 50% of life enjoyment away and each of us gets 50 healthy years of self-directed adult life, a year of lockdown is equivalent to sapping 1% of total life enjoyment. That’s not exactly the same as 1% increase in population deaths in a year, but it’s comparable IMO.