Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
Tue Mar 17, 2020, 11:56 AM Mar 2020

If 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).

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If the idea is to flatten the curve, do these measures need to be in place for like 6 months/a year? (Original Post) DanTex Mar 2020 OP
I have seen as far out as 20 weeks. apcalc Mar 2020 #1
same number of infections, but spread out. the two choices - NRaleighLiberal Mar 2020 #2
To election day. Frasier Balzov Mar 2020 #3
Depends upon how overwhelmed our health delivery system gets. Laelth Mar 2020 #4
Yeah, you've figured it out PJMcK Mar 2020 #5
We need to massively expand hospital resources greenjar_01 Mar 2020 #6
I think it's happening in Singapore. bamagal62 Mar 2020 #7
+1, saw the same thing uponit7771 Mar 2020 #10
Theoretically the goal is not to completely stop the spread Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2020 #8
3 months minimum uponit7771 Mar 2020 #9

NRaleighLiberal

(60,015 posts)
2. same number of infections, but spread out. the two choices -
Tue Mar 17, 2020, 12:01 PM
Mar 2020

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.

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
4. Depends upon how overwhelmed our health delivery system gets.
Tue Mar 17, 2020, 12:03 PM
Mar 2020

If Italy is any indication, we may be in bad shape very soon. Honestly, that’s the only reasonable answer. Right now, we are in wait-and-see mode.



-Laelth

PJMcK

(22,037 posts)
5. Yeah, you've figured it out
Tue Mar 17, 2020, 12:04 PM
Mar 2020

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)
6. We need to massively expand hospital resources
Tue Mar 17, 2020, 12:04 PM
Mar 2020

Reducing new infections + expanding resources both affect the relationship between infections and system capacity.

bamagal62

(3,264 posts)
7. I think it's happening in Singapore.
Tue Mar 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
Mar 2020

They flattened the curve and I believe I saw that it is now quickly rising again.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,414 posts)
8. Theoretically the goal is not to completely stop the spread
Tue Mar 17, 2020, 01:01 PM
Mar 2020

but to slow the spread so that resources are not overwhelmed.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the idea is to flatten...