The purpose of flattening the curve is to make sure the number of people requiring hospitalization including ICU does not overwhelm the system. Assuming that patients will receive the same quality of treatment in that case, there is no benefit for flattening the curve further. Unless we get a vaccine, the majority of people will get the virus. Those that will die from it because of underlining conditions will die unless they are isolated until there is a vaccine. Once we get to 60 or 70% infected, the virus will decline as the R.0 will be less than 1. Knowing how many people are infected is very important and requires reliable antibody testing.
In Israel, where I live, 90% of deaths to individuals with underlining conditions. The majority of cases are in individuals over 65 but that is because they have more underlining conditions. However, many people older than that, are healthy and will survive the virus.
To the extent that you can control what segment of the population gets infected, you would want to start with the youngest. Israel is going to open up kindergarten’ for that reason. The parents of the children will infect each other but they are young. Most young children do not live with a grandparent present. The more people infected, the lower the rate of infection. So as we exit here, we will see a spike I would guess and then a gradual reduction as herb immunity impacts the rate of infection.
I am happy to report that I have been able to influence a few of our major hospitals to use cPAP on sedated patients to prevent severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
I don’t get this statement, “Assuming that patients will receive the same quality of treatment in that case, there is no benefit for flattening the curve.” If the healthcare system is overwhelmed, the assumption is that patients will NOT receive the same quality of care. That’s why we are trying to flatten the curve and avoid overwhelming the healthcare system.
As for opening kindergartens, I read of a Japanese study a few years ago that concluded the best way to protect the elderly from flu was to vaccinate elementary school students. The assumption that infecting kids will not put the elderly at risk is VERY flawed.
Thanks for your comment, Andrew. I am sorry I was unclear. I meant that once you get to a level that the treatment received is not reduced by the number of infections, there is no need to flatten beyond that. Lowering the number will just prolong the period before herd immunity takes over.
COVID 19 is not the flu and there is good evidence here that young children will not pass the virus. However, that is not my point. My point is that the parents will infect each other. Most people that have young children are in a lower risk group. Those with underlining conditions should avoid contact with most people. However, this means waiting it out until there is a vaccine.
I don’t think it is right for you to say that my remarks were flawed based on a study that was done about the flu. I try to be very thoughtful about what I say and grounded in as many facts as I can get. Perhaps you would like to try that as well.
Just because children have a lower risk from COVID-19 doesn’t mean they are less infectious. We don’t know exactly who is infectious and who is not. Until we do, flu is as good a model as any. Until there is more information, I do think your remarks are flawed.
This is getting to be pretty silly. COVID 19 is not the flu. So why would we look at the flu? Anyway, my point is that the parents will infect each other. If the kids infect them, that would be fine. My other point is that most children do not live with their grandparents. I suggest we stop now. Stay safe.