|
|
|
|
|
|
by chiefalchemist
2280 days ago
|
|
|
But of course. If you intentionally prevent ppl from being infected then they remain susceptible. Short of a vaccine, you can't put it off forever. Those ppl can't hide forever. This is an expected - or should be - result of "flatten the curve." FTC is not about the virus per se, it's about the healthcare system. That is, to not exceed the volume the healthcare system can handle. Put another way, an increase in the number of positives isn't necessarily a bad thing. If if stays towards the 80% who are asymptomatic or low risk then the more the better. They'll get it. Recovery and will be past it. The key number - the number the media should be emphasizing - is the positives in high risk individuals. That's the curve we don't want to see spike. Furthermore, it's where those happen. One-thousand as 50 in 20 cities is not the same as 500 in one city (e.g., NYC) and the other 500 distributed evenly elsewhere. The aggregate numbers make great - but crap - headlines. The understanding is in the details. |
|
|
For example, nobody yet explained to me how flattening the curve is gonna make much difference when say NYC has 3,000 ventilators, and the average time on a ventilator is 20 days. If 1/100 of NYC's 8 million population need a ventilator that'd still be 80,000 ventilators needed.
So flattening would reduce the deaths to 74,000 instead of 77,000?
[To be clear I'm not saying this math is exact. But I am saying I am owed the actual math by people who want me to change my life over it]