Can someone explain what flattening the curve is actually for? Everyone keeps saying if we flatten the curve everything will be fine. Is this true? As there is no cure wont the same amount of people get infected just over a longer period of time. Is flattening the curve just to make sure the hospitals don't overflow? I am so confused why do people act like if we flatten the curve corona virus will just be no more.
Flattening the curve?
Brody Edwards
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.is
twitter.com
twitter.com
Alexander Richardson
>GUIZE SRSLY
Anthony Foster
> just to make sure the hospitals don't overflow
Julian Scott
Tyler King
The narratives are all fucked up. They say we're all going to get the virus eventually, but we should stay inside to flatten the curve, so that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. The whole idea is to draw this out as long as possible. Then they say that if we go outside, then we'll have to extend the quarantine for longer because... huh? Because you were bad and went outside. Also, thousands of people died because we didn't stay inside soon enough. Does this mean hospitals were so overwhelmed that they were turning away dying people?
It doesn't make a bit of sense user.
Jace Barnes
The purpose is that if the virus was actually deadly then flattening the curve would prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed. The virus isn't deadly so it's actually just retard speak now.
Samuel Evans
It's really just the icu bed numbers and respirators.
Since we don't now whether people will get immunity it's still just a big gamble.
Matthew Lewis
Suppose you have a hospital with a capacity for servicing 10 new people daily. If you get 100 new people in a day then 90 don't get treated and end up dead or else requiring even more medical attention than they would have had they been taken in earlier. But if you can control how quickly those 100 new people show up at the hospital without them getting worse or dying by slowing the rate the virus spreads from person to person then you could have 10 people go to the hospital each day for 10 days and everything's fine.
I'm not saying any of this was actually true for this SARS-2-CoV fiasco, but that's the logic behind that meme phrase. If you ever get a job with Workforce Management for a business you'll see how much worse things get when you understaff and can't meet service levels. It doesn't just stop at "oh, I needed X people but only had Y so now these customers didn't get serviced until 10 minutes later than usual" since it compounds on itself. When you can't keep up with traffic the problems of not getting serviced drive even more customer traffic. In call centers this might involve people who had billing problems calling back and trying to escalate the issue, requiring multiple departments to deal with extra call volume now. And with hospitals you get people who end up with more physical damage / disease progression who need more resources and staffing to treat them when you finally do get around to their position in the line.
Thomas Turner
"flatten the curve" is the sub-100IQ meme that makes normies think the lockdowns are about something other than installing world government with the entire population enslaved under a technocratic control grid with chink style social credit scores.
Jack Wilson
>Then they say that if we go outside, then we'll have to extend the quarantine for longer because... huh?
The reasoning is that if you've flattened the curve enough the virus can be controlled again by quarantining actual cases and their contacts. If you have too many cases you cannot trace them in sufficient numbers, so you'll have to lockdown the country again.
>Is flattening the curve just to make sure the hospitals don't overflow?
Yes. And to buy us time so we become more proficient at treating the symptoms.
Justin Collins
This is what cuckservatives and lolbertarians tell themselves because their weak ideologies would be incapable of dealing with an actual pandemic.
Joshua Morgan
>The virus isn't deadly
sure thing faggot, I work in a hospital and have seen people outright leave this world because of this "not deadly" virus.
The most obvious thing is that by limiting gatherings of large people and social movement limits to potentiallity of the virus being spread and overwhelming the populace.
As it is now, the virus is mainly contained in small communities of peoples who are then taken to hospitals, which makes the hospital the number one place of infection. If everyone was running around as normal this would spread so far and encompass us all.
As for OP, what needs to happen is that the (mainly) boomers who have need to die or recover, whilst limiting it's spread, by the role we all play, so that the statistics of infection rates drop, and it as well as the infection rate dissipates.
People need to die and/or recover without increasing the spread for it to happen.
The virus doesn't just wipe people out in 1 day either, it takes time.
Wyatt Johnson
>If you have too many cases you cannot trace them in sufficient numbers, so you'll have to lockdown the country again.
English, motherfucker.
Gabriel Young
What part of that sentence did you fail to understand?
Jose Green
>that one greek retard
Joshua Johnson
originally, it meant flattening the wave of new cases so hospitals weren't overwhelmed. of course, even in new york, hospital were NOT overwhelmed, meaning that either it worked or that its bullshit. now, it means flattening the curve of new cases(and then deaths) completely so it doesn't come back. Of course it will, though not as dangerous, but it gives the media and government the ability to say 'i told you so' and lockdown even harsher
Gabriel Foster
>Is flattening the curve just to make sure the hospitals don't overflow?
yes, even normally deadly diseases are frequently only deadly because health services get overwhelmed. most ebola strains - zaire excluded - are entirely survivable with attentive care
Colton Morales
Wow you could not be more wrong.
Influenza is a completely different virus, have you ever sequenced a gene in your whole fucking life?
Tyler Hall
The whole thing. You've written nonsense. It doesn't mean anything. Try rearranging the words.
Maybe it's hard to see past your own glow.
Camden Foster
You do realise that "seasonal flu" is generally diagnosed clinically, and statistics for deaths and other measures are usually based on reported symptoms? What's actually being measured each year is the impact of seasonal acute respiratory conditions in general, of which coronaviruses tend to make up 10-15%. So yes, what was previously being incorporated into "seasonal flu" statistics is now being treated as a vastly different entity because someone decided to run a PCR on a patient in China.
Brandon Nelson
The curve is flat when the number of daily "covid-related" deaths reaches its peak.
It flattens because a critical percentage of the population has been exposed to the virus and become immune, thereby inhibiting the opportunities for the virus to spread.
(when a person is immune, the virus can't highjack their cells to replicate itself because their immune system destroys any cells that become infected)
Ryan Ross
NY looking very fishy
Ayden Young
>Is this true?
Europe is starting to open up
Ryan Perez
Personally, I think you're just retarded but I'll try to explain it in simpler words.
Let's see your post again:
>They say we're all going to get the virus eventually, but we should stay inside to flatten the curve, so that hospitals aren't overwhelmed.
Yes.
>The whole idea is to draw this out as long as possible.
Yes, since it also grant us time to become more adept at treating the symptoms and look for a vaccine.
>Then they say that if we go outside, then we'll have to extend the quarantine for longer because... huh? Because you were bad and went outside.
If you break quarantine and go outside ("outside" meaning disregarding social distancing measures) then obviously you might spread the virus thus drive the numbers up, which in turn results in quarantine measures having to be continued.
If you quarantined long enough you could actually get rid of the virus. Most countries are past that point. For some countries there is still the option to push numbers low enough so that they can trace individual cases again and control the virus that way. This means that they'll be able to get rid of the harshest lockdown measures.
>Also, thousands of people died because we didn't stay inside soon enough. Does this mean hospitals were so overwhelmed that they were turning away dying people?
Yes, that's what happened in Spain, Italy, France and Wuhan.
Jacob Davis
They literally can't trace existing cases already. There are many studies showing the true infection rate is anywhere from 10x-80x higher than confirmed cases. Millions of people already have this thing and quarantine isn't doing shit
Eli Campbell
>Yes, since it also grant us time to become more adept at treating the symptoms and look for a vaccine.
No, we were told it was to keep from overwhelming the capacity of the medical system.
There can never be a vaccine because even after developing antibodies you can still get re-infected. We've been told this repeatedly.
> If you break quarantine and go outside ("outside" meaning disregarding social distancing measures) then obviously you might spread the virus thus drive the numbers up, which in turn results in quarantine measures having to be continued.
Good! Drive the numbers up! We have empty hospitals right now with dumb bitches making TicTok dance videos. Since 80-90% of us are going to get the virus, we need to fill them to capacity and work through this.
In conclusion, gas yourself.
John Martinez
>They literally can't trace existing cases already.
In Asia they've been successful. In parts of Europe they're attempting this. Austria for example is a good candidate. They have locked down the country long enough to drop their numbers sufficiently.
>There are many studies showing the true infection rate is anywhere from 10x-80x higher than confirmed cases.
This heavily depends on the testing capacities. In Germany's most afflicted region the actual numbers were only three time higher, and the test might have also included false-positives induced by common colds.
>Millions of people already have this thing and quarantine isn't doing shit
Completely untrue. The lockdown measures have been demonstrably working. And not just regarding Sars-2 but also cases of common cold and influenza have been dropping. It would be utterly ridiculous to think that quarantining the country would have no effect on a virus that spreads by people coming in close contact.
Ayden Wright
What's not English from anons post?
Jason Johnson
Yes its just to make sure hospitals dont get overrun, if our healthcare system wasnt sucha joke we wouldnt have to be in lockdown at all.
Nolan Johnson
You are right that, theoretically, the same number of people will ultimately need to become infected in order to reach herd immunity regardless of whether the curve is steep or flat.
The media's "flatten the curve" refrain seems mainly to be bullshit. But one reason for doing it could be to prevent the hospitals from getting swamped with new cases all at once. The problem is that, from the beginning, there doesn't seem to have been any good evidence for thinking that covid19 is more serious than the flu. Obviously, in hindsight, their estimate of the number of hospital beds that would be required even with the mitigation measures in place were way too high.
Adam Price
>Can someone explain what flattening the curve is actually for?
Ireland's ICU facilities can deal with just 411 patients at a time.
archive.is
Angel Price
It's nonsensical. I'm American btw, don't let the flag fool ya
Jayden Fisher
>No, we were told it was to keep from overwhelming the capacity of the medical system.
Wrong. It serves both purposes.
>There can never be a vaccine because even after developing antibodies you can still get re-infected. We've been told this repeatedly.
Wrong.
twitter.com
>Good! Drive the numbers up! We have empty hospitals right now with dumb bitches making TicTok dance videos.
Not in Spain, Italy and France. Due to the virus initially spreading in an exponential phase your hospital system can be overwhelmed within days.
>Since 80-90% of us are going to get the virus, we need to fill them to capacity and work through this.
The problem is that the margin is very thin. Even in Germany, where we have more ICU beds than plenty of other countries, we'll have a hard time managing. Keeping hospitals at capacity would be ideal but for the German case this means keeping the reproductive number above 1 but below 1.2. For countries with lower capacities this margin is even thinner.
Jaxon Jackson
Is there any evidence that people died because hospitals were turning them away? You're getting your narratives all tangled up and, I'll re-state, not making any sense Hans.
You're saying the US or Russia should stay locked down because Italy was overwhelmed for its hospital capacity. 1. We've seen no evidence of that, and 2. US/etc isn't Italy.
And your graphs are so irrelevant as to be gish-gollop.
I'm beginning to think Hitler missed a few..
Elijah Watson
>Is flattening the curve just to make sure the hospitals don't overflow?
Yes.
But they are moving the goalposts continuously.