Coronavirus: Endgame?

[CincySportsFan]

I didn't want to threadjack and post this in any of the other threads dealing with this thing. But, I have a question that I can't really seem to see anybody (at the professional level) addressing. But, ultimately, flattening the curve gets us to where? (And please don't confuse this with WHY we are trying to flatten the curve. I totally understand that.) This is more of a WHERE we are going. To me, there are several possibilities...

 

* Until a vaccine can be created?

* Until a "cure" can be found?

* Until additional medical equipment can be manufactured?

* A combination of any/all of the above?

 

Here's also several other key components that go into my question...

* A vaccine will likely take 12-18 months to get done

* A cure will not happen overnight, as they don't want it to lead to more deaths than the original virus. Hence the reasoning into looking into already approved treatments/drugs.

* It's been said we may hit our "peak" of the curve sometime in May.

* We could see anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 people die from it.

 

So here's my quandary, let's just say 50 million people end up being infected by the time we reach October (figuring 5 months on the uphill side of the curve, and another 5 on the downhill side) due to more testing being available. That sounds like a huge number, doesn't it? But, in reality, it's only 1 out of every 6 people or so.

 

Meaning that if all of this social distancing is relaxed, it really only takes one unsuspecting carrier to start this ball rolling again, right? Am I missing something?

[theguru]

The Battle of the Alamo.

[Voice of Reason]

The social distancing can be relaxed when:

 

1. The curve has flattened enough that the medical community feels it has capacity to handle the expected load of serious cases.

 

2. A treatment (not vaccine) is discovered that can control the virus enough in serious cases and reduce deaths.

[CincySportsFan]

The social distancing can be relaxed when:

 

1. The curve has flattened enough that the medical community feels it has capacity to handle the expected load of serious cases.

 

2. A treatment (not vaccine) is discovered that can control the virus enough in serious cases and reduce deaths.

 

I think #2 really is the one that's the most important then. Because a susceptible population of 250 million really isn't that different than 300 million, is it, when it comes to the medical community?

[Beechwoodfan]

I keep wondering the same thing too. Given the fact that you can spread it for two weeks before showing symptoms, I don’t know how we are not going to have another spike when things are relaxed. As mentioned above, perhaps by slowing things down, we will have a better knowledge base and resources to take care of people.

[Voice of Reason]

The other thing we need is more testing. That is how you control the spread. Test every suspected case and then track back the contacts with the positive cases.

[GrantNKY]

Why do I feel like there is something I’m missing, but I just don’t believe we’ll see the kind of numbers people are talking about. I truly feel that by summer we’ll have a handle on this to the point that we can go back to somewhat normal. Hanging out in public places, people going back to work, sporting events, etc. For those that have seen the Dave Chappelle standup, Sticks and Stones, I just keep coming back to the line he says, “I don’t believe these people.” That’s kind of my thoughts on all of this. Obviously I recognize this is a serious problem, but I don’t see this as some end of the world, armageddon type scenario. I just don’t believe it’s going to last as long and I don’t believe as many people will be infected and as many will die as is predicted. That doesn’t mean we all shouldn’t take certain precautions in the meantime, but medical science will catch up and catch up fast to this virus and we’ll be able to move past this sooner rather than later. I’m just not a negative person. I prefer to keep hope alive as opposed to worrying about things that in my hearts of hearts I don’t believe will take place.

[PurplePride92]

I didn't want to threadjack and post this in any of the other threads dealing with this thing. But, I have a question that I can't really seem to see anybody (at the professional level) addressing. But, ultimately, flattening the curve gets us to where? (And please don't confuse this with WHY we are trying to flatten the curve. I totally understand that.) This is more of a WHERE we are going. To me, there are several possibilities...

 

* Until a vaccine can be created?

* Until a "cure" can be found?

* Until additional medical equipment can be manufactured?

* A combination of any/all of the above?

 

Here's also several other key components that go into my question...

* A vaccine will likely take 12-18 months to get done

* A cure will not happen overnight, as they don't want it to lead to more deaths than the original virus. Hence the reasoning into looking into already approved treatments/drugs.

* It's been said we may hit our "peak" of the curve sometime in May.

* We could see anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 people die from it.

 

So here's my quandary, let's just say 50 million people end up being infected by the time we reach October (figuring 5 months on the uphill side of the curve, and another 5 on the downhill side) due to more testing being available. That sounds like a huge number, doesn't it? But, in reality, it's only 1 out of every 6 people or so.

 

Meaning that if all of this social distancing is relaxed, it really only takes one unsuspecting carrier to start this ball rolling again, right? Am I missing something?

 

This is how I understand it.

[futurecoach]

I didn't want to threadjack and post this in any of the other threads dealing with this thing. But, I have a question that I can't really seem to see anybody (at the professional level) addressing. But, ultimately, flattening the curve gets us to where? (And please don't confuse this with WHY we are trying to flatten the curve. I totally understand that.) This is more of a WHERE we are going. To me, there are several possibilities...

 

* Until a vaccine can be created?

* Until a "cure" can be found?

* Until additional medical equipment can be manufactured?

* A combination of any/all of the above?

 

Here's also several other key components that go into my question...

* A vaccine will likely take 12-18 months to get done

* A cure will not happen overnight, as they don't want it to lead to more deaths than the original virus. Hence the reasoning into looking into already approved treatments/drugs.

* It's been said we may hit our "peak" of the curve sometime in May.

* We could see anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 people die from it.

 

So here's my quandary, let's just say 50 million people end up being infected by the time we reach October (figuring 5 months on the uphill side of the curve, and another 5 on the downhill side) due to more testing being available. That sounds like a huge number, doesn't it? But, in reality, it's only 1 out of every 6 people or so.

 

Meaning that if all of this social distancing is relaxed, it really only takes one unsuspecting carrier to start this ball rolling again, right? Am I missing something?

 

I have been wondering this too. This virus isn’t going to magically disappear. So at some point things will have to go back to normal, because I doubt the country will stay shutdown for over a year or more waiting for a vaccine. It is going to be hard enough for the country to stay shut down for one or two months as is.

 

Obviously need to do this to slow the curve, which makes sense. Plus needed to get baseline data to see exactly how it is impacting us here in our country. I think once we have that, we will see the basic shut down be done because the country can’t and won’t wait until there is a vaccine.

 

So I believe sometime in June we will see our country start to go back to normal.

[TheDeuce]

The social distancing can be relaxed when:

 

1. The curve has flattened enough that the medical community feels it has capacity to handle the expected load of serious cases.

 

2. A treatment (not vaccine) is discovered that can control the virus enough in serious cases and reduce deaths.

 

This.

[John Anthony]

The curve is certainly about hospital systems. If doctors are overwhelmed or get sick they won’t even be able to treat normal ER visits.

 

I also think they hope warm weather will buy them time for a vaccine.

[CincySportsFan]

The curve is certainly about hospital systems. If doctors are overwhelmed or get sick they won’t even be able to treat normal ER visits.

 

I also think they hope warm weather will buy them time for a vaccine.

 

I know a lot of other people that are saying that as well. (I was hoping for that, initially, too.) But, if the heat was truly our ally, shouldn't we be seeing fewer cases in the southern states right now? I mean there's twice as many people confirmed in Arizona as there is in Kentucky right now.

[John Anthony]

I know a lot of other people that are saying that as well. (I was hoping for that, initially, too.) But, if the heat was truly our ally, shouldn't we be seeing fewer cases in the southern states right now? I mean there's twice as many people confirmed in Arizona as there is in Kentucky right now.

 

Viruses can exist in any weather but statistically the cold months are the worst for the seasonal flu. I think warm weather will help, but it’s only a temporary slow down.

[Irish Cat]

I know a lot of other people that are saying that as well. (I was hoping for that, initially, too.) But, if the heat was truly our ally, shouldn't we be seeing fewer cases in the southern states right now? I mean there's twice as many people confirmed in Arizona as there is in Kentucky right now.

 

The number of confirmed cases in any given state, doesn't mean much without additional data. To begin with Arizona has close to twice as many people as Kentucky, but more importantly, I think you would need to know how many people have been tested in each state in order to draw any conclusions. If Ariziona has tested more people than Kentucky than you would expect more positive test. Same as if Kentucky would double the number of people it has tested than you would expect the number of positive test to double as well.

 

I don't like how so many stats are being thrown around now without any context. We need the media to give us more information without having to go dig for it to make some sense of the numbers that they are providing.

[tcjkbt]

The number of confirmed cases in any given state, doesn't mean much without additional data. To begin with Arizona has close to twice as many people as Kentucky, but more importantly, I think you would need to know how many people have been tested in each state in order to draw any conclusions. If Ariziona has tested more people than Kentucky than you would expect more positive test. Same as if Kentucky would double the number of people it has tested than you would expect the number of positive test to double as well.

 

I don't like how so many stats are being thrown around now without any context. We need the media to give us more information without having to go dig for it to make some sense of the numbers that they are providing.

 

Exactly.