3 ms·

Well if you take eradication off the table, then you have to assume the entire susceptible population will eventually get the virus. So I guess, I don't see the

Well if you take eradication off the table, then you have to assume the entire susceptible population will eventually get the virus. So I guess, I don't see the benefit of "stomping" the virus down to some small level. It was at a very small level back in February, and then grew. If we get it back down to that small level, it will just grow again. There's no benefit to locking down for 3 months to have it grow in July instead of March. A controlled burn approach makes a lot more sense, but that is not the same as "stomping" the virus.

wongarsu 6y ago
If you stomp it down enough then a few relatively light measures (masks, some distancing, some contact tracing) are enough to keep it down. That's what's happening in Europe right now. Sure, eventually everyone would be infected at least once given infinite time. But that doesn't matter, what matters is how many people get infected before a vaccine is developed and widely deployed.
MengerSponge 6y ago
Effective testing and contact tracing is sufficient to dramatically reduce the spread of the virus. If we're a year away from a vaccine or treatment, then we don't need to burn down society to stop it this month. But if we act in a way that causes millions of infections, we're inflicting unnecessary harm on thousands. We've also learned more about how to keep people alive and how to slow the spread of the virus since February, so it's useful to postpone that exponential growth as long as possible.
fanimalmanimal 6y ago
If you keep the infection rate low enough you can keep the hospitals from being over capacity and also delay infections until after a vaccine is developed and administered, thus preventing the infection. Both of these states would have the benefit of reducing the total number of deaths. When the lockdown talk started, I thought that was the point.
sdenton4 6y ago
Time does wonders. We have much better knowledge of treatment options than we had in March, which makes a real difference in lives lost. And eventually, we might (might!) get vaccines. So the longer the curve is flat, the more time we have to learn and craft better interventions. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-drugs-treatments.html?searchResultPosition=2 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus...
oramit 6y ago
Stomping the virus down to a manageable level so it doesn't overwhelm hospitals was the main goal of "Flatten the curve". We actually succeeded in quite a few hot spots to do this - NYC being the biggest example. Covid still exists there and people are still dying but it's not out of control. If you stay on top of it, it doesn't just grow again. I'm not sure why you say there was no benefit to locking down. It clearly did wonders for NYC. It's likely that thousands of people were saved by this action.
- marcell 6y ago
  What you're describing may be a controlled burn approach under a different name. After a certain point, the virus infects the entire susceptible population, and then it stops because everyone susceptible has died or obtained immunity. Suppose 30% of the population is susceptible to covid. If lockdown policy slows the spread of the virus to 1% of the population per month, it would take 30 months before the pandemic passes. That's a very long time to do lockdown, very damaging to the economy and people's livelihoods. I've read a lot about overwhelmed hospitals. I'm not clear on if it's happened in any widespread fashion. The media coverage tends to emphasize the bad cases and ignore the boring cases. It doesn't seem like people are unable to get medical care. I have checked the Texas online dashboard now and then, and currently about 10,000 people in a state of 29,000,000 are hospitalized with covid. Texas dashboard: https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#... The logical policy would be let the virus pass through the population as fast as possible without overwhelming hospitals, given the specifics of any geography.
  - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
    I'm sorry but you making one incorrect assumption after another. No, it would not be logical to let the virus go. It would kill some people and causes other health effects. We don't want a few million deaths. Plus now there is clear evidence that some people don't have antibodies after they get it, a few months later, and this is not completely unknown in other diseases. Some people have some protection though. Plus there are people who get it a second time as far as we can tell. There are not infinite number of hospital beds. In NY they were past the limits for a month, killing med staff and also ptsd for them. This was barely avoided in Seattle. It's happening now in Houston. The people sick with cv19 are blocking others from being treated, and some people stay home. The hospitals financial plans start to fail because all the other medical procedures are stopped because its dangerous to be at the hospital and they are repurposing say dermatologists to work in the cv19 wards.

wongarsu 6y ago

If you stomp it down enough then a few relatively light measures (masks, some distancing, some contact tracing) are enough to keep it down. That's what's happening in Europe right now. Sure, eventually everyone would be infected at least once given infinite time. But that doesn't matter, what matters is how many people get infected before a vaccine is developed and widely deployed.

MengerSponge 6y ago

Effective testing and contact tracing is sufficient to dramatically reduce the spread of the virus. If we're a year away from a vaccine or treatment, then we don't need to burn down society to stop it this month. But if we act in a way that causes millions of infections, we're inflicting unnecessary harm on thousands. We've also learned more about how to keep people alive and how to slow the spread of the virus since February, so it's useful to postpone that exponential growth as long as possible.

fanimalmanimal 6y ago

If you keep the infection rate low enough you can keep the hospitals from being over capacity and also delay infections until after a vaccine is developed and administered, thus preventing the infection. Both of these states would have the benefit of reducing the total number of deaths. When the lockdown talk started, I thought that was the point.

sdenton4 6y ago

Time does wonders. We have much better knowledge of treatment options than we had in March, which makes a real difference in lives lost. And eventually, we might (might!) get vaccines. So the longer the curve is flat, the more time we have to learn and craft better interventions. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-drugs-treatments.html?searchResultPosition=2 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus...

oramit 6y ago

Stomping the virus down to a manageable level so it doesn't overwhelm hospitals was the main goal of "Flatten the curve". We actually succeeded in quite a few hot spots to do this - NYC being the biggest example. Covid still exists there and people are still dying but it's not out of control. If you stay on top of it, it doesn't just grow again. I'm not sure why you say there was no benefit to locking down. It clearly did wonders for NYC. It's likely that thousands of people were saved by this action.

marcell 6y ago
What you're describing may be a controlled burn approach under a different name. After a certain point, the virus infects the entire susceptible population, and then it stops because everyone susceptible has died or obtained immunity. Suppose 30% of the population is susceptible to covid. If lockdown policy slows the spread of the virus to 1% of the population per month, it would take 30 months before the pandemic passes. That's a very long time to do lockdown, very damaging to the economy and people's livelihoods. I've read a lot about overwhelmed hospitals. I'm not clear on if it's happened in any widespread fashion. The media coverage tends to emphasize the bad cases and ignore the boring cases. It doesn't seem like people are unable to get medical care. I have checked the Texas online dashboard now and then, and currently about 10,000 people in a state of 29,000,000 are hospitalized with covid. Texas dashboard: https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#... The logical policy would be let the virus pass through the population as fast as possible without overwhelming hospitals, given the specifics of any geography.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  I'm sorry but you making one incorrect assumption after another. No, it would not be logical to let the virus go. It would kill some people and causes other health effects. We don't want a few million deaths. Plus now there is clear evidence that some people don't have antibodies after they get it, a few months later, and this is not completely unknown in other diseases. Some people have some protection though. Plus there are people who get it a second time as far as we can tell. There are not infinite number of hospital beds. In NY they were past the limits for a month, killing med staff and also ptsd for them. This was barely avoided in Seattle. It's happening now in Houston. The people sick with cv19 are blocking others from being treated, and some people stay home. The hospitals financial plans start to fail because all the other medical procedures are stopped because its dangerous to be at the hospital and they are repurposing say dermatologists to work in the cv19 wards.