![]() challenge testing, or C: the second step of the underpants-gnome business plan. The only credible followups I’ve seen proposed are A: testing and contact tracing, or B: rapid deployment of a vaccine or treatment through e.g. But wherever you set the intensity/duration trade, you need the followup solution ready at the end. In that case, you might even want to go to extremes like a two-week period in which literally no one but uniformed police, paramedics, and national guardsmen are allowed on the streets with some of the guardsmen doing food deliveries. ![]() In that case, a more intense lockdown leads to a shorter lockdown. There’s a better argument, sometimes tied to the “flatten the curve” meme but not actually involving a flatter curve, that a relatively brief but intense lockdown could cause a rapid exponential decline in infections to the point that, in maybe a couple of months, less restrictive measures could take over. Even if we quickly build bignum ventilators and field hospitals and whatnot, trained personnel still puts an upper limit on system capacity in the near to mid term, and “flattening the curve” well enough to avoid exceeding that limit would require an impossibly precise level of control over a period of at least a year or two in the best case. However, the “most people are going to get sick but we can at least spread it out so we don’t overwhelm the health care system” version of flattening the curve never really was feasible. ![]() That reasoning seems correct as far as it goes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |