3 ms·
> Lately, the prevailing argument seems to be that we need to shelter in place because virus cases will increase if we don't. That was not the original justific
by fao_ 6y ago
> Lately, the prevailing argument seems to be that we need to shelter in place because virus cases will increase if we don't. That was not the original justification. Of course cases will increase! The question ought to be, will they increase to the extent that they overwhelm hospital capacity?
But that was the original reasoning.
"Flattening the curve" is reducing the number of virus cases that happen. The number of cases of the virus will increase -- the number of PEOPLE with life-threatening or life-changing injuries will increase, if we don't reduce the number of people spreading the virus.
- twblalock 6y ago> "Flattening the curve" is reducing the number of virus cases that happen. No, that is absolutely incorrect. Flattening the curve was not intended to reduce the total number of cases. It was intended to reduce the rate at which those cases occurred, i.e. to spread them out over time, so that hospitals did not get overwhelmed. It is a rate limit. In the long run, the only way to shrink the total number of cases is a vaccine.
- DuskStar 6y agoVaccine or extermination. But extermination means no international travel, and a stronger lockdown. Which looks like it worked for NZ, but won't for the US.