If the flattening isn't working is it time to face reality?

[erc]

All of these measures were put in place to slow the progression to the point where the hospitals could keep up. If all of these things still are not working, would it be better to just let it spread so that we develop herd immunity sooner rather than later?

 

[TippyThomas]

I have no idea. It's way above my pay grade.

 

[gwynne]

All of these measures were put in place to slow the progression to the point where the hospitals could keep up. If all of these things still are not working, would it be better to just let it spread so that we develop herd immunity sooner rather than later?

Flattening the curve isn't a rapid process. It takes time.

 

[erc]

I have no idea. It's way above my pay grade.

Well mine too, but that never stopped me from speculating before.

 

[Forevermarypoppins]

No!!

 

[choirfarm]

All of these measures were put in place to slow the progression to the point where the hospitals could keep up. If all of these things still are not working, would it be better to just let it spread so that we develop herd immunity sooner rather than later?

We do not know if it is working because it takes 2 weeks before you are clear from transmission. We should see cases increase for at least 14 days, then maybe, if we are isolating enough they will come down. What is being shown right now started 2 weeks ago.

 

[erc]

We do not know if it is working because it takes 2 weeks before you are clear from transmission. We should see cases increase for at least 14 days, then maybe, if we are isolating enough they will come down. What is being shown right now started 2 weeks ago.

So we should have shut everything down 2 weeks ago? What is the level where it is overwhelming the system? I have read reports that 7% of coronavirus cases require hospitalization. With the current 33,000 positive cases that would mean 2,310 hospitalizations. Is that enough to overwhelm the hospitals?

 

[JimMIA]

So we should have shut everything down 2 weeks ago? What is the level where it is overwhelming the system? I have read reports that 7% of coronavirus cases require hospitalization. With the current 33,000 positive cases that would mean 2,310 hospitalizations. Is that enough to overwhelm the hospitals?

No.

Breathe in. Breathe out.

 

[Amymouse13]

Maybe if everyone actually isolated... But you know spring breakers, cherry blossoms, some states still have school open... Instead this is a CF

 

[e_yerger]

All of these measures were put in place to slow the progression to the point where the hospitals could keep up. If all of these things still are not working, would it be better to just let it spread so that we develop herd immunity sooner rather than later?

no no no. this logic pains me.

Why would we want more people to be exposed and possibly die? Our parents, grandparents... people that are immunocompromised... asthma, cancer patients... heck even smokers & vapers.

If we overwhelm our health systems it will get to the point that the most healthy person (without any prior conditions) would get the ventilators. That means that my best friend (auto immune disease), cousins (smokers), grandparents (cancer) would not get ventilators and would probably die.

Stay the heck home people.

 

[erc]

No.

Breathe in. Breathe out.

Hah. Really at this point I want to kiss a coronavirus patient and get my free natural vaccine.

 

[erc]

no no no. this logic pains me.

Why would we want more people to be exposed and possibly die? Our parents, grandparents... people that are immunocompromised... asthma, cancer patients... heck even smokers & vapers.

If we overwhelm our health systems it will get to the point that the most healthy person (without any prior conditions) would get the ventilators. That means that my best friend (auto immune disease), cousins (smokers), grandparents (cancer) would not get ventilators and would probably die.

Stay the heck home people.

I guess I mean if even with all these measures we are still overwhelming the hospitals, then we have lost that battle right? At that point go after herd immunity to stop the spread. All while locking up the elderly.

 

[choirfarm]

So we should have shut everything down 2 weeks ago? What is the level where it is overwhelming the system? I have read reports that 7% of coronavirus cases require hospitalization. With the current 33,000 positive cases that would mean 2,310 hospitalizations. Is that enough to overwhelm the hospitals?

Yes, it would have been helpful to shut them down earlier. New York is getting close to being overwhelmed and I expect the hospital to be overwhelmed before the next two weeks are over. Their cases are doubling every two days. Here is a chart that might help.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/21/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-by-country.html

 

[erc]

Yes, it would have been helpful to shut them down earlier. New York is getting close to being overwhelmed and I expect the hospital to be overwhelmed before the next two weeks are over. Their cases are doubling every two days. Here is a chart that might help.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/21/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-by-country.html

Is it a case of being overwhelmed in one area but maybe plenty of capacity in other areas?

 

[Wendy31]

Maybe if everyone actually isolated... But you know spring breakers, cherry blossoms, some states still have school open... Instead this is a CF

Exactly.

We don’t know if social distancing is working because we’re NOT social distancing.

We’re still having play dates & birthday get-togethers & spring break fun. People are still traipsing all over Gatlinburg & to see the cherry blossoms. Some churches are still having services. Some governors haven’t shut down their states’ schools.

We have no idea if social distancing will work because we‘re too selfish & too stupid to stay home & government officials can’t coordinate anything w/ any kind of efficiency.

 

[choirfarm]

I guess I mean if even with all these measures we are still overwhelming the hospitals, then we have lost that battle right? At that point go after herd immunity to stop the spread. All while locking up the elderly.

No! Whatever we do now will help. If we do nothing, hundreds of thousands die. If we do something, maybe only tens of thousands. I figure my family of 5's effort alone may be saving 1,000 lives.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm not convinced the increase in numbers anywhere in the US is an indication of new people contracting the disease vs new people being tested for the disease. The more you test, the more positives you'll come up with.

 

[e_yerger]

I guess I mean if even with all these measures we are still overwhelming the hospitals, then we have lost that battle right? At that point go after herd immunity to stop the spread. All while locking up the elderly.

But we can still limit the spread. We need to make sure there are less new people infected. We need to limit the amount of people that have the virus at one time. Lets say we limit the amount of people to where it is right now, then the hospitals will be able to play catch up with the patients they have now, and then be able to manage it.

We're still going to have the same amount of people infected, just over a longer period of time. The goal is to make sure that the hospitals are NOT overwhelmed.

It's also extremely ageist to say "lock up the elderly".

 

[RamblingMad]

It's been one week.

The UK initially went down the herd immunity path, and then they decided to shutdown as well.

This looks promising. Check out the New Cases v New Recoveries.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

[erc]

It's also extremely ageist to say "lock up the elderly".

Well, I really meant protect the elderly with extreme measures.