In this day and age, I always consider the source of information. I do not find the media very credible these days. I think they have strayed very far from facts. I find Dr. Fauci to have greater credibility.
I'm in my bunker, stocked with supplies
Yes, this sounds like it might get bad
Not at all worried
What, me worry?
In this day and age, I always consider the source of information. I do not find the media very credible these days. I think they have strayed very far from facts. I find Dr. Fauci to have greater credibility.
Last edited by Larry Frank; 03-14-2020 at 7:38 AM.
One difference between the two graphics I notice is that the one not from MSNBC doesn't show the same initiation point for both curves. It look like it assumes that "distancing" begins before onset in the flattened curve, while the MSNBC graphic shows onset at the same point. Since we did not start distancing early, both curves should have the same initiation point.
Mike
Last edited by Mike Henderson; 03-14-2020 at 10:59 AM.
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
The idea is to slow the spread of the virus so that the system can better cope with it within the resources available. If things peak quickly and overwhelm the resources as in the red curve on the graph, it may actually increase the mortality rate. There's no "stopping" the spread, but slowing it is a known way to be able to deal with it more effectively from a health care perspective.
I agree with the comment(s) that the start point for both curves should be identical in time, even if that's estimated. Professor Dr. SWMBO, who is an epidemiologist agrees with that.
--
The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...
If it’s like every other flu, 40% of us will get it, hopefully spread out over time, and most fatalities limited to elderly with underlying health issues.
I view the graph that the same number of people get infected, just spread out over time. I could be wrong but that’s how I interpreted it. Early diagnosis and quick isolation flattens the curve.
The idea is that with early discovery, one can isolate and let ones own body fight off the virus with antibodies. In severe cases (1 in 10) the patient would have to be hospitalized.
I am not worried. I do take the advice of scientists and exercise hygiene and limit social interaction.
Regards,
Tom
Short of a magical perfect vaccine available tomorrow there is no stopping it. Its everywhere. We cant do a full global shutdown with zero contact between people for the next few months.. The assumption is 60 to 70% of the population will contract it. They are just trying to keep it to a 1% mortality rate rather than a 4%+ mortality rate when you are forced to let people die in the streets from lack of treatment.
I think people are over analyzing the curves. I doubt they are based on detailed information and I doubt they are intended to show total number of infected people is the same or not under the two scenarios. Nobody knows how many cases there are now much less projecting how many there will be. The one known value that could have been put on the curve is the capacity of the healthcare system. If you look there are no numbers on either axis. I'm sure the intent of the curve is just to illustrate the expectation that if measures aren't taken to slow the spread, then the number of cases can exceed the capacity of the healthcare system. If that happens whether for a week or a year people will go untreated and some will die that could have survived with treatment.
As to "what treatment?", while there may not be medication to kill the virus, there are other measures such as putting critically ill patients on respirators (which are in limited supply).
Our former surgeon general has stated some of our finest hospitals are now working with substandard protective equipment and this is already effecting patient and healthcare worker safety. Shut all non essential interactions down.
If, under the flattened curve scenario, a person exercises more vigilance, and in doing so they avoid contracting the virus entirely, wouldn't they now be absent from both curves? And by extension if 1000 people do the same, or 100,000, then you see my point.
Could you ask Professor Dr. SWMBO if it might be possible that the goal of containment and mitigation is twofold, meaning not only to reduce the peak stress on the healthcare system, but also to prevent some percentage of people from contracting it at all?
Another way of saying it is the difference between the peak curve and the flat curve (in the vertical axis) represents a certain number of cases. Let's say it's 100,000. Could it be that some percentage of that 100,000 will indeed get metered out as eventual victims on the time chart, but some percentage will drop off the chart entirely because they didn't contract it because they successfully practiced mitigation steps like avoiding crowded places, vigilant handwashing, staying at home as much as possible, etc.
Yes, I agree you can't stop it, but I think the advice is that you can mitigate it through actions, and this makes logical sense to me. I thought this is what Fauci was trying to say, but it's possible I misunderstood and if I did, then flattening the curve does not mean any avoidance, only delay.
Edwin
It will be interesting to look back on this a year from now to see how the stats stack up against other pandemics and to see whether or not we overreacted by closing down schools and sports.
NOW you tell me...
Monty Python did a comedy sketch years ago where they were going through a town during the plague crying "Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!" Come to find out, in the 14th Century during the Black Plague they really did that.
I always think of that sketch whenever we have an epidemic.
Mike
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.