@Flash wrote:
A lot of the problem here is that I think many people expected closing the economy and sheltering in place to END the virus transmission and 'Win the War'. They will view the measures taken as a failure because there is still virus out there. I myself am disappointed that we have not seen a significant DECLINE in new cases, even though I know that the measures were only intended to SLOW the increases in cases. It is hard to be patient.
Measures taken have 'flattened the curve', but we all were on different parts of the curve to start with. What is truly important is that during this period the medical community has been able to share amongst themselves what treatments are and are not working. This will increase the chances for all of us getting through the illness part of this relatively unscathed, but it is not the time to ditch our masks and sanitizers and go about our business as if the virus never existed.
We were not big on crowds, malls, beauty salons, bars, bowling, tattoo places etc. before the virus and are unlikely to be there even if the virus completely disappeared tomorrow. Different strokes for different folks.
It is obvious that there will not be ample or even adequate testing made available by the government--federal or state--to isolate carriers and those with low level infection. In my area the 'confirmed' cases demographics have drifted to being pretty representational of the actual demographics except when it comes to race.
A crucial number is the R0 value (the number of people an infected person passes the virus along to), Flash. If it is ABOVE 1, then the growth curve mathematically becomes exponential and cases get out of hand.
The difference between 1 and .9 is mathematically significant. You can stop growing new cases at .9, but not with 1. I didn't know this until reading here: [
www.bbc.com]
@ wrote:
Why is a number above one dangerous?
If the reproduction number is higher than one, then the number of cases increases exponentially - it snowballs like debt on an unpaid credit card.
But if the number is lower, the disease will eventually peter out as not enough new people are being infected to sustain the outbreak.
One thing I'm looking for is how other countries going off lockdown have fared. Germany recently reported a spike in new cases:
[
nypost.com] (April 29th)
@ wrote:
Germany recorded a spike in its coronavirus infection rate after starting to gradually relax lockdowns, according to a report.
COVID-19 patients in Germany were infecting an average of 0.7 other people before the country allowed small businesses to reopen earlier this month, Sky News reported.
But following the first step to resuming a normal life, the rate jumped up to 0.96, according to the report.
Experts warned the rate is dangerously close to the golden standard of 1.0 that countries should aim to stay below to keep the outbreak manageable.
It's so tough to model, because countries are different:
--population demographics (age, health, poverty, etc.)
--population density (more cities...suburbs...rural areas?)
--degree of public cooperation in safety measures (masks, social distancing, etc.)
--degree of health officials/government safety measures (contact tracing and effective testing)
--degree of businesses reopening
--weather***
***Yes, I know this is debatable as a factor for inhibiting the spread of COVID-19 as easily, but it's a possibility that hasn't been ruled out, even if there isn't consensus by scientists.
The hope is that we'll be wiser after opening back up a bit, so that the R0 rate can go below 1. I do worry about the U.S. for cultural reasons. There is a proportion of the population that holds an "it's my right" mentality that can betray them in times like this. Liberty has always been what's made America great. But sometimes it can work against you if the people are "too questioning" of being told to do certain things - like wear masks, social distance, and shelter in place (don't go out for unnecessary things). In many Asian countries, there's been quick obedient response to government recommended/imposed safety measures. There is something cultural to that, which sometimes work for and against them. Here in the U.S., I've seen people with extreme diverging views and practices. There is a no-fear crowd and "rule-ignoring/ignorant crowd" (these two categories between the "and" aren't necessarily the same) on one side and then a very conscientious, safety first crowd on the other side (that's probably me). And you have everything in between. The hope is that the efforts of the safety-first crowd don't get ruined by the people who go right back out and initiating contact with others without thinking of safety first when we re-open.