General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf the idea is to flatten the curve, do these measures need to be in place for like 6 months/a year?
If we stay buckled down and social distancing for two months, and then stop, wouldn't the virus just start to spread exponentially at that point? It seems we would have to buckle down until either there's a vaccine (a year away) or else enough of the population has gotten it that there is herd immunity (I don't know what percent that would be but presumably that would take a while).
apcalc
(4,465 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)let it just go and completely overwhelm our resources
or
flatten the curve - same number infected, but the system may be able to handle it better - but that really does take it out 6 months to a year.
no good choices, sadly, in the absence of an effective agent to use to combat the disease.
Frasier Balzov
(2,654 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)If Italy is any indication, we may be in bad shape very soon. Honestly, thats the only reasonable answer. Right now, we are in wait-and-see mode.
-Laelth
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)Even Dr. Fauci has said that the social distancing practices should remain in place for at least 8 weeks.
They don't want to tell us the whole truth because of the panic it could create. Just look at the irrational purchasing of toilet paper last week.
It will be a long time-- if ever-- before life as we knew it returns.
greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)Reducing new infections + expanding resources both affect the relationship between infections and system capacity.
bamagal62
(3,264 posts)They flattened the curve and I believe I saw that it is now quickly rising again.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)but to slow the spread so that resources are not overwhelmed.