5 ms·

No no no, this is a major misunderstanding, and it has contributed to a lot of public mistrust of public health authorities. Even though flatten the curve was l

No no no, this is a major misunderstanding, and it has contributed to a lot of public mistrust of public health authorities. Even though flatten the curve was largely believed by the media and the public in March to mean "mitigate Covid to prevent health system collapse," many experts are insisting that what they meant all along was trying to reduce Covid deaths as much as possible. And this intention becomes clear when you see an expert oppose reopening even in areas where hospitals are mostly empty (like parts of California a month ago). Some good tweet threads on this major point of contention: https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1277236932121157632 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1277236932121157632 (Carl Bergstrom, in the replies, is one public health figure who insists he originally meant essentially flatten as much as possible). Nate Silver insists most people understood flatten the curve in March to mean mitigation: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1277347535061946372 https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1277347535061946372 One of the few nations to actually follow the "mitigate Covid to prevent health care system collapse" is Sweden. The fact that the media/experts roundly criticize Sweden for having too many deaths (despite their health system not collapsing) is another piece of evidence that they really mean "flatten as much as possible."

graeme 6y ago
Yeah I think the language itself was ill chosen. “Flatten the curve” helped convince people that drastic measures were needed, but it also gave the idea the curve would continue. Coronavirus has two bad effects: 1. It kills people and causes long run harm to many survivors 2. It can also overwhelm health systems, which leads to more deaths than otherwise and prevents the treatment of normal medical problems You obviously want to avoid #2. But it also makes sense to avoid #1. “Flatten the curve” makes it seem like #1 is not so bad. I said flatten the curve myself. I meant eliminate both though. It’s not that much more effort, as many countries have shown. In fact with a head start it was much less effort. We have a harder road ahead now though in places where it is not eliminated. But I am not sure anyone can find a credible expert who said “flatten the curve and keep letting it run through till a vaccine”.
umanwizard 6y ago
How is it even possible to avoid the same number of people getting it, regardless of lockdowns? Lockdowns will have to be lifted eventually, almost certainly before a vaccine is widely distributed, and then won’t the outbreaks just start again, assuming there’s still at least one case anywhere in the world?
- argonaut 6y ago
  People believe you can lock down to 0, then suppress further growth with test and trace, mask wearing, etc. This sounds perfectly fine but it has never been done before. So ironically it's not "backed by science" since there is no empirical evidence of effectiveness. It would literally be an experiment.

graeme 6y ago

Yeah I think the language itself was ill chosen. “Flatten the curve” helped convince people that drastic measures were needed, but it also gave the idea the curve would continue. Coronavirus has two bad effects: 1. It kills people and causes long run harm to many survivors 2. It can also overwhelm health systems, which leads to more deaths than otherwise and prevents the treatment of normal medical problems You obviously want to avoid #2. But it also makes sense to avoid #1. “Flatten the curve” makes it seem like #1 is not so bad. I said flatten the curve myself. I meant eliminate both though. It’s not that much more effort, as many countries have shown. In fact with a head start it was much less effort. We have a harder road ahead now though in places where it is not eliminated. But I am not sure anyone can find a credible expert who said “flatten the curve and keep letting it run through till a vaccine”.

umanwizard 6y ago

How is it even possible to avoid the same number of people getting it, regardless of lockdowns? Lockdowns will have to be lifted eventually, almost certainly before a vaccine is widely distributed, and then won’t the outbreaks just start again, assuming there’s still at least one case anywhere in the world?

argonaut 6y ago
People believe you can lock down to 0, then suppress further growth with test and trace, mask wearing, etc. This sounds perfectly fine but it has never been done before. So ironically it's not "backed by science" since there is no empirical evidence of effectiveness. It would literally be an experiment.