Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk digler
Apparently this report influenced the current course of action by the Feds. Seems to me this is wildly extreme but what do I know.
|
Quote:
|
"The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package -- or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission -- will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) -- given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed."
|
That's EXACTLY the problem. If your answer is 'stop the spread' then you're saying that we shut everything down until there's a vaccine. Because under that plan, there's no acquired immunity. So the moment you start the country back up, you're right back where you were on 3/1/20. The 'flatten the curve' movement is just thrown right at the window at that point.
It's exactly the "dig a trench and wait for air support" scenario that I believe is simply not viable. If the government tries to put the brakes on the nation for 12 months, there will be no government left to re-start. You'll have a genuine descent into anarchy.
With additional evidence suggesting a seasonal nature, you need to slow-play this into the warmer weather where transmission rates will be naturally slowed and the curve will flatten naturally. Trying to simply hold the water back as long as possible is just as likely to end in a scenario where the dam finally breaks in October and the outbreak re-starts at the
beginning of the cold/flu season. Which would be truly catastrophic. Use where we are on the calendar to our advantage.
That being said, I think it's risky to try to use the UK to extrapolate results given their relatively small landmass and thus the increase probability of a true nationwide outbreak. Our major advantage in this remains geography. If we don't lean on that advantage (and every other advantage at our disposal), we're making a massive mistake.