Anticipating the great 2020 COVID19 “die off”...NON Political

The Spanish Flu killed more people in the second wave than it did during the first.

Probably no way to avoid that without shuttering the global economy but there are some apples on very low branches that can be picked to help flatten THAT curve.

 

Volume increases if curve goes high enough that parking lots become ICUs.

If curve can be flattened enough to (mostly) prevent that happening, lower volume can be hoped for.

 

Once all the healthcare workers are sick/dead/traumatized beyond function there's no more flattening available. And we'll be SOL for all the other maladies that are currently curable with medical care.

It's been a while since I've heard anyone talking about medication shortages, but with so much manufacturing and trade shut down it's fairly inevitable, right?

 

I seem to recall reading about that same sentiment in the same part of the world in 1944........and again on the otha side of the world around Thanksgiving of 1950 in Korea.


Speaking of the Frozen Chosin....you can 'pause' an economy and stuff your pantries full of Charmin and cans of food - but if the economy stays in an induced coma...the recovery might kill more patients than the cure.
Pretty soon all of those Amazon trucks are going to need maintenance...people are going to have to stuff beans, greens, and fruit into those cans and knock down a bunch of trees to make the butt-wipe.....and grow and pick the food, make the cans, and plant replacement trees.
Orchards, fields, herds and flocks do not care if there is a 'human' bug going around, and growing seasons are as easily altered as school years.....

While it is true that the second wave of the Spanish flu was the deadliest (of 3 waves) the one thing that they did not do was shut down the economies of whole states for months at a time.

They call it 'common sense' because it SHOULD be, but if more people tried to seek COMMON GROUND we could "probably" find a happy medium between complete lock-downs and matching the death counts of that long-ago pandemic.

 

May not change the total number of infected. But done right, it will drastically reduce the mortality rate, as in case of Germany, where only ~3% of those infected have died (~4600 died/ ~146K confirmed), compared to Italy where over13% of infected died (~24K died/ ~179K confirmed). US is currently doing somewhere in the middle of those two examples, or about 5% mortality rate (~40K died/~760K confirmed). And if US succeed flattening the curve, then in hindsight it may look like Covid-19 wasn’t such a big deal after all, and people may think we did all that for nothing. Really???

 

Everything @Salamander_King said, plus: it hopefully reduces infection/death in health care workers. Not overwhelmed, rushed off their feet, having dwindling protection supplies, working on the edge of panic: that's a big plus.

And as @Leadfoot J. McCoalroller says: once the health care workers fall by the wayside, then we're really up the creek.

 

we also have the advantage of 100 years of medical science over the spanish flu. no doubt, better treatments will rapidly develop until we get a vax

 

Yes, there are already treatments that are showing promise, such as remdesivir. No doubt there will be others. We flatten the curve until we we can keep the disease from being deadly, then we can lift the quarantine. I'm optimistic that this will be soon (maybe a month or two). Then by fall there will be a vaccine. There are about 75 different vaccines in development!

 

Well... maybe. I understand nobody has ever created a vaccine for a coronavirus before.

Also, there is likely to be at least a few months' difference between "a vaccine" and "enough doses of that vaccine for everyone"

 

Yes, but no time in history has the world had the number of biotech companies that exist now along with their advanced knowledge, nor the communications networks to instantly get these companies information about the virus and what the competition is trying.

Bill Gates is promising 100 million to help get the most promising vaccines into production, although he has said the actual cost will be in the billions. I would assume that the world's countries will help out. It is cheap compared to what the economic losses are costing us.

edit add: Also, I heard that vaccines were developed for the earlier SARS coronavirus (2003) but that the disease petered out before they had a chance to finish human trials.

 

Recall that the 1918 Virus (AKA Spanish Flu) lasted three years. And that the celebrations of the end of the WW I where people flocked together to celebrate the war contributed to the spread.

Every day I hear of another treatment or vaccine being designed or tested. Believe it when side effects are known and volume production can satisfy the population. Yet even then how many will not receive it for lack of health insurance, being able to afford it, or lack of available infrastructure?

 

I think you're talking about reducing the area under the curve, right? Flattening a surface would reduce the volume under it.

As others say, there may be a benefit to flattening, but ...

I'm very curious to know just how much all this potential for the world's greatest medical treatment (not talking about a vaccine, and short of any cure) actually reduces mortality. It seems to be assumed that since all the doctors, nurses, etc. are busy bravely doing something, that it must change the outcome. I tend to be very cautious in following assumptions just because everyone else does without a second thought.

Keeping things sufficiently in check until a vaccine or cure is developed would certainly help, obviously.

The thought process on just how tolerable it is to freeze the economy seems to depend on how much people have to lose. Business owners and people who work for a living but can no longer do so tend to see things differently than the others. Yet people who disagree argue that the others don't understand; they probably do, they just have different stakes in the game.

I am very cautious in putting faith in almost any data other than deaths. From a career largely based on working with data, I know that using bad data can very easily lead one to bad conclusions. In many cases, completely ignoring the doubtful data in favor of the reliable stuff (if it exists) is the wiser option.

 

Depends on whether flattening it also spreads it out lengthwise. The general idea is that we're eventually going to reach some equilibrium where enough susceptible people have turned into immune people or dead people that cases no longer grow exponentially.

All else staying equal, it might be true to say that the goal is to flatten and lengthen, so it takes longer, but the area under stays roughly the same.

But the thing is, this curve can go steep enough, if not flattened, that all else does not stay equal. If the choice is between so many cases, so fast, that all our responses are overwhelmed, or a slower progression that is manageable, that can make a heckuva difference in volume.

Not to mention the proportion of that volume that ends up as immune people rather than dead people.

I see you might have just had a quibble about area v. volume. Well, when we abstract stuff into numbers and graphs, we have a 2D growth curve with an area under it ... but that abstract area represents concrete numbers of people, who are 3D and occupy volume. It wouldn't be unusual to talk about numbers of people needing care as 'volume' ... in the sales joke sense of "I lose a little on each sale, but I make it up in volume."

 

A rapidly produced vaccination for a deadly virus, quickly released and administered to the worlds population?
Isn't that the back-story for 90% of every Zombie Apocalypse movie ever made?
I'm just kidding here....BUT.....

And I'm not sure what lines we are suppose to be following here. OK, I'm trying to NOT hijack the thread or make it "political", but I would say unfortunately our government has turned a world wide health crisis INTO a politicized issue.

So whatever viewpoint you take on the crisis, or reaction to the crisis, it automatically IS simultaneously a political issue. I didn't do that. Blame the powers that be.

So if you don't want me to stray? Exactly what is the topic here? The idea that we should continue to embrace Covid 19 isolation protocols, even with the flattening of the curve and perhaps local and regional reduction of such protocol? With the idea, that we still face danger and risk?
OK. I agree.
But I don't think for most of us it's that simple or even has been that simple.
I mean, unless you're suicidal, nobody is waving there hands in the air because they WANT to be part of a "Covid 19 die off". What it's coming down to is far more complex.
I think it is coming down to the individual resources of people and families. I think it is coming down to personal economics and national economics. Those that do not have jobs that allow them to work from home, or don't have the resources, can't as easily embrace continued divorce from employment/pay and work.
So again NOT to be political, but it does come down to not what I want to do, or even what YOU can do. It comes down to making the best overall decisions we possibly can, based on medical science that reduces the risk of spread, while YES allowing for a return to work, and a degree of "business as usual" economy.
I feel this is going to differ from State to State, region to region, but is on some level going to be a compromise, that will entail some risk.
But really the whole term "Covid 19 die off" is ridiculous. People have died, and yes, unfortunately more will.
But the answer for a whole nation as big as the USA, isn't as simple as I have decided to not "participate" in the "die off", while suggesting those that don't or really can't..are choosing TO participate.

IMO that terminology IS politicizing the issue, and disrespectful to those that have died, and will die. It's not about a choice to participate in a die off, or NOT participate. That's simplistic and unfair to the complexities of the challenges WE face as a nation.

 

the topic is in the first post: 'flattening the curve does not reduce the volume'.

'i do not want to die, will continue social distancing'

i believe it is supposed to be a take on the statistical models and timelines.

 

Fine but THIS is both in the title and in the genesis post.

"I do not choose to participate in the Great COVID19 die off of 2020."


And I say this in my post:

" The idea that we should continue to embrace Covid 19 isolation protocols, even with the flattening of the curve and perhaps local and regional reduction of such protocol? With the idea, that we still face danger and risk?
OK. I agree. "

But I think presenting that idea, as being in any way as being as simple as a "die off" choice? Is simplistic and the very poison supposedly wanted to be avoided....it's political.

 

In short, humankind will rise above this. Optimism fuels thinking, which in turn, provides solutions. It is a proven fact that staying positive in the face of adversity causes the brain to think more clearly and see more solutions.
As well said by "The Electric Me", we will move forward, ever slowly, ever cautiously towards some type of closure regarding this virus.
ETC(ss) also made some valid statements regarding what has to continue in some respect globally. I tell you what, this situation has made me really appreciate the freedom I once enjoyed daily.