General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFlattening the Curve question for Stats/Math Nerds
In the "flattening of the curve" aren't we going to get the same amount of cases over the
long run but just not a spike in the # of cases in a shorter period of time?
PSPS
(13,591 posts)Response to Botany (Original post)
bearsfootball516 This message was self-deleted by its author.
RichardRay
(2,611 posts)Hopefully, the peak remains below the capacity of the healthcare sector to treat the cases. It avoids triage such as were seeing in Italy where docs are having to let some patients go without treatment in order to treat others with a better chance of living.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)is primarily to keep from overwhelming the capacity of the healthcare system, so while it may possibly reduce the total number (due to getting a better handle on how it's spread, improving best practices, and possibly developing some effective medical treatments with the time we buy) that isn't the primary goal.
Girard442
(6,070 posts)...all things being equal. People are working their butts off to see that all things will NOT remain equal. Time buys hope.
AleksS
(1,665 posts)Pretty close, and that's just fine. There'll be a slight decrease, especially if treatments advance near the tail end of the curve, or a vaccine is developed earlier than anticipated, but the big advantage is not overwhelming the system.
For example: If you know you will have 100 cases that will need hospitalization, and only have 10 hospital beds, its WAY better to have 10 cases at a time, 10 times, than to have one blast of 100 cases arrive all at once. In the first case, everyone gets care. In the second case 90 cases are up a creek without a paddle.
That's why slowing the spread/flattening the curve is so important.
CincyDem
(6,351 posts)Over the course of a week, I probably drink a gallon of milk. No issues.
If I try to drink that gallon of milk over the course of 5 minutes...I woof my cookies because my stomach can't take the change in acidity.
So the same amount of milk gets drunk but my system can handle it.
Imagine milk = virus cases and my stomach = hospitals.
It's not about the number of cases...it's about the rate of cases. One gallon a week = OK, One gallon in 5 minutes = not ok.
That's my take on flattening the curve.
cos dem
(903 posts)CincyDem
(6,351 posts)....its the life event through which all other events are filtered. Lolol.
Have a good one.
misanthrope
(7,411 posts)A lot of liquid in a short amount of time.
CincyDem
(6,351 posts)cos dem
(903 posts)However, keep in mind these are pretty simple math models, and don't account for the inevitable feedback mechanism of human behavior. This is both good and bad. The bad part is people looking at today's data, not understanding exponential growth, and thinking things will be fine. The good part is those starting to take it seriously, with cancellation of sports, concerts, school, etc. All of this plays into a much more complicated outcome, with potentially fewer cases overall.
The one thing that can be said for sure, is that if the "flattened curve" avoids exceeding the medical capacity of our hospitals, that fewer deaths will result, because the serious cases will be able to be dealt with, rather being triaged and rationed the way they are in Italy right now.
For other math nerds:
My main area of expertise is signal processing, and I find it very interesting how the "flattened curve" resembles the impulse response of a bandlimiting filter. The energy in the impulse remains the same, but the response is stretched in time, and also delayed by the group delay of the filter.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If your area is set up to have 1000 births a year, then maternity facilities for six to nine people is fine.
If those 1000 births occur today, your facility is fucked.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... the flat curve will last.
Takket
(21,560 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,844 posts)Attempted quarantine (upper right chart)
Moderate distancing (lower left chart)
Extensive distancing (lower right chart)
k i g knowledge is good
Jim__
(14,075 posts)It's possible that everyone will get sick before there's a vaccine, but it's also possible that we'll get a vaccine before then. The immediate point of flattening the curve is to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system.
Windy City Charlie
(1,178 posts)But what you're trying to do is have COVID-19 have the same impact on the health care system as what a normal flu season is, so that the health care system can keep up with the demand. In other words, if you had the number of flu cases in the short period of time that COVID-19 could have without flattening the curve, there's no way the health care system could handle that. Yet the COVID-19 cases are expected to be much worse even during a much less period of time. It's about making sure the health care system can sustain itself, not only with COVID-19 cases, but with other conditions as well.
Igel
(35,300 posts)still not comparing, but merging the flu and covid because there's feedback between the two already ...
They're going to largely target the same populations. If covid becomes permanent, it'll bleed flu mortality rates just as annual flu deaths will have already reduced covid lethality.
Ms. Toad
(34,062 posts)Flattening the curve gives some of us time to wait for a vaccine. Treatment will not be quite so crazy, so the medical team may be able to identify treatments that make survival more likely (either because experience often improved methods -or because our medical teams have space between patients to reflect on what they are seeing to evaluate what works. But this is a side effect - the main goal is just to survive.)
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)1) it will allow us to not overwhelm our system which means better care for all
2) Gives us more time to try better treatments
RockRaven
(14,958 posts)We have the capacity to provide the necessary life-saving treatment to X number of people in any given day. If the number of people who need life-saving treatment, Y, exceeds X then the difference between X and Y will be how many people die that day for want of adequate health care.
That's why the morons who say everyone should get infected on purpose right away so the economic impact is limited to a shorter period of times are so sociopathic -- they are totally unconcerned with many thousands or millions of preventable deaths due to lack of health care resources.
If you stretch the curve out long enough, not only does this lower the peak (i.e. decrease the peak value of Y), but it increases the time until the peak which may allow, by judicious marshaling and coordination of our resources, us to increase X or at least keep it as high as possible for as long as possible.
Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)Things to add in the mix.....
# of hospital beds.... get quoted under a million.....
What is failed to be mentioned..... LOCATION....
SOME OF US ARE GOING TO BE TOO FAR AWAY and no choice in their time of dire need.
Red counties not near cities not near hospitals!?!
Add the stress to the so called HC system, the claims, their horrific BS internally... it's part of the business model, that forces it to SUCK SUCK SUCK?
That's just beds.... You need breathing apparatus and these clowns in charge can't be trusted to even order one even if they said they have?
Every doctor and RN available will probably wind up exhausted and that will lead to errors....
~spit~
Good luck!