It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: incoserv
The reason for the emphasis is on "flattening the curve" is to prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed by too many hospitalizations too rapidly.
Here's a good read:
COVID PDF
originally posted by: incoserv
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: incoserv
The reason for the emphasis is on "flattening the curve" is to prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed by too many hospitalizations too rapidly.
Here's a good read:
COVID PDF
So, ultimately the idea is not so much to reduce the number of infections, but to stretch them out over time and so as to lessen the impact on the health care system?
I can see that.
originally posted by: 1947boomer
originally posted by: incoserv
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: incoserv
The reason for the emphasis is on "flattening the curve" is to prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed by too many hospitalizations too rapidly.
Here's a good read:
COVID PDF
So, ultimately the idea is not so much to reduce the number of infections, but to stretch them out over time and so as to lessen the impact on the health care system?
I can see that.
Flattening the curve also reduces the number of people who will die during the process of achieving herd immunity.
Right now, about 5% of those infected are hospitalized; about 20% of those die, leading to an effective Infection Mortality Rate (IMR) of about 1%. If the hospital system gets saturated and can’t accept any new patients (as is happening in Italy) then every new case that needs hospitalization but can’t get it will have a higher probability of dying. In some of the cases that are currently being modeled by the public health organizations, the need for hospital beds could be only 1/10 of what’s needed, at the peak of the epidemic. That could push the IMR to 2% or more for those periods of time. Recent research appears to indicate that nearly 100% people who survive COVID-19 infection do have immunity to reinfection for probably at least a year or two. That means that if more of the infected are dying because there are no hospital beds available, there aren’t as many immune people going back into the population, so natural herd immunity takes longer to build up.
Also, the more you delay the occurrence of the peak, the more time there is to get medical interventions in play. There are already several trials of antiviral medications underway (Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Losartan) that could have results as early as next month and could possibly be administered a month after that. There are also vaccines already in clinical trials. The time to go from first infection to trial vaccine is now much faster than it was let’s say, 10 years ago. Public pronouncements by CDC and others that it might take 12 to 18 months to have a vaccine are probably worst case; I wouldn’t be surprised to see some available in half that time.
Do you think the infection just goes away? Trump used to say something like that.
In China, they cut transport services and put people under virtual house arrest. But was the curve flattened much, or are we just at the end of the natural progression of the epidemic?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
What are our other options?
Italy responded very late and there are indications that the virus actually had arrived there months before it was recognized. I think Italy is an example of why the measures being taken should be taken.
Do you think the infection just goes away? Trump used to say something like that.
In China, they cut transport services and put people under virtual house arrest. But was the curve flattened much, or are we just at the end of the natural progression of the epidemic?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
Yes, I am aware of the basics of epidemiology.
Insufficient to accomplish what, exactly? Start with that.
I am saying that the current recommendations are insufficient and are bourne from advisors trying to cut costs.
I don't see how anything short of true quarantine could accomplish that. I don't see how true quarantine could be accomplished on a nationwide, or even statewide level. We are not China.
Insufficient to slow the infection rate by enough to offset the exponential growth from those already infected and who may be asymptomatic.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
I don't see how anything short of true quarantine could accomplish that. I don't see how true quarantine could be accomplished on a nationwide, or even statewide level. We are not China.
Insufficient to slow the infection rate by enough to offset the exponential growth from those already infected and who may be asymptomatic.
The rate of infection can be decreased, that's the best we can do. Indications are that decrease can prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
Yes, I am aware of the basics of epidemiology.
Insufficient to accomplish what, exactly? Start with that.
I am saying that the current recommendations are insufficient and are bourne from advisors trying to cut costs.
Insufficient to slow the infection rate by enough to offset the exponential growth from those already infected and who may be asymptomatic.
The effect of current precautions is fairly linear. The infection rate is exponential. Only very early on does the linear curve exceed the slope of the exponential curve. Once the curve is going, the linear response won't change things. It is too late.
originally posted by: 1947boomer
originally posted by: incoserv
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: incoserv
The reason for the emphasis is on "flattening the curve" is to prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed by too many hospitalizations too rapidly.
Here's a good read:
COVID PDF
So, ultimately the idea is not so much to reduce the number of infections, but to stretch them out over time and so as to lessen the impact on the health care system?
I can see that.
Flattening the curve also reduces the number of people who will die during the process of achieving herd immunity.
Right now, about 5% of those infected are hospitalized; about 20% of those die, leading to an effective Infection Mortality Rate (IMR) of about 1%. If the hospital system gets saturated and can’t accept any new patients (as is happening in Italy) then every new case that needs hospitalization but can’t get it will have a higher probability of dying. In some of the cases that are currently being modeled by the public health organizations, the need for hospital beds could be only 1/10 of what’s needed, at the peak of the epidemic. That could push the IMR to 2% or more for those periods of time. Recent research appears to indicate that nearly 100% people who survive COVID-19 infection do have immunity to reinfection for probably at least a year or two. That means that if more of the infected are dying because there are no hospital beds available, there aren’t as many immune people going back into the population, so natural herd immunity takes longer to build up.
Also, the more you delay the occurrence of the peak, the more time there is to get medical interventions in play. There are already several trials of antiviral medications underway (Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Losartan) that could have results as early as next month and could possibly be administered a month after that. There are also vaccines already in clinical trials. The time to go from first infection to trial vaccine is now much faster than it was let’s say, 10 years ago. Public pronouncements by CDC and others that it might take 12 to 18 months to have a vaccine are probably worst case; I wouldn’t be surprised to see some available in half that time.
There are already several trials of antiviral medications underway (Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine,Losartan)
Reuters reported that scientists at the University of Minnesota are testing two drugs, the malaria treatment drug hydroxychloroquine and the blood pressure drug losartan, to see whether either drug is effective in blocking the virus's reproductive processes.