What do you think about "Can just slow the spread" notion? (i.e., will ultimately kill same number)

[pat_k]

41. True about likely "misrepresentation" of (or outright lying about) data from China.

And, as noted in reply #30, my use of the word "same" was wrong.

I expressed it badly, but nevertheless, I think we still have a shot at actually reducing the overall number of those who are infected through funding of widespread testing, tracing, and quarantine, to the extent possible. It seems to me that the belief that things are "beyond containment" is being used as an excuse to shift from proactively funding and implementing aggressive testing, tracing, and quarantine programs to more "passive" cancellation of events, etc." Things that may require "bailout" later, but don't cost in proactive action and money up front.

I am all for all the "slowing" measures -- social distancing, cancelling events, etc., but our efforts can't stop there.

I may be deluding myself. Maybe 70% in every county of the country will end up infected. However, there is so much unknown about where we actually stand in terms of spread, it seems premature to conclude that we have no way to reduce the overall number of people infected. Premature to conclude that all we can do is try to "flatten the curve."