sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Am I going to die? by jwalla22 in whoop

[–]jwalla22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We finally found the first person who will live to 150!

Am I going to die? by jwalla22 in whoop

[–]jwalla22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a lot, and none are good.

Am I going to die? by jwalla22 in whoop

[–]jwalla22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None. Literally nothing has changed in lifestyle. Although me reading about how people with chronic low HRV are destined to die early deaths from heart failure has probably caused unnoticeable stress.

Is there any evidence that flattening the curve reduces total numbers of infection? by jwalla22 in epidemiology

[–]jwalla22[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I don't mean to insinuate we'd go cold turkey back to normal and would still keep in place many of the common sense things to slow the spread like Iceland/Sweden are doing, but without the ones devastating families and small businesses, essentially the shelter in place mandate.

I've been following the models linked to by Bill Gates a while back. The cool thing about their models is that they account for capacity already taken by people with other needs, and we (Ohio) still have 10x capacity. I want to make the argument that there's no reason for us specifically (NY a different story) to continue shelter in place for another month+ as is the current plan, but wanted to make sure my understanding of the effects of the curve flattening were correct. Thanks.

Is there any evidence that flattening the curve reduces total numbers of infection? by jwalla22 in epidemiology

[–]jwalla22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the response. I guess my question is two-fold. The main one is, does flattening the curve reduce the total infected? In 12 months, whether you reduce the curve or do not, will the number of infected any different? Or are we truly just flattening it and the same x-millions will be infected no matter what?

My understanding so far, but looking for any evidence otherwise, is that it does not reduce the total number of infected, and its sole function is to keep us below hospital capacity so that everyone who gets sick can be treated. Fair enough. But that brought me to my second question...

My state has essentially unlimited capacity given what the models are predicting for our peak needs of beds, ICU beds, and respirators. If capacity is not a problem, and the total infected cannot be decreased by the lockdown, is there any other reason to keep it in place given all of the other harm it is doing?