But WHY do we need to flatten the curve? (anxiety warning!)

shesty

There are 2 axis on the graph.One is time, one is numbers (of cases).If you flatten the curve, you basically go further out on the X Axis...(the time axis) and therefore....you are extending the time period.

In doing so (and my thinking is still somewhat disjointed on this) you are buying yourself time.Essentially, many of the world's problem solvers will try to buy time in addressing a problem.It allows you to consider the problem further, see how solutions work, try different ones.Right now, we are buying time in order to fatten up our system, to be able to take more ICU patients.Be that taking over hotels, adding extra ICU beds, whatever.

The key thing to understand in all of this is that these things MIGHT be used.We are building contingency into the system, extra beds, buildings for isolation or whatever.I have seen posts where people have said things like oh god, we are building a temporary mortuary!!Oh god, we are putting in more ICU beds!!Oh god, we are all doomed!!

We are not doomed.This is risk planning, mitigation, contingency measures, whatever you want to call them. In other words, they are planning for the worst and hoping for the best.We do not want these things to have to be used...of course we don't ...but firstly, it is better to have them than be looking for them, and secondly...the fact that they are there doesn't mean that they WILL be used, or be used to capacity.

We need keep perspective.24 hour news coverage is very bad, and it skews everything way out of whack.Worse, because we have nothjng else to talk about these days.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it? I think it's a lot less strange than some media articles that report some random celebrity's opinion on the whole thing.

By strange, I'm referring to the stay tuned until tomorrow where I'll explain more, that's after the be afraid be very afraid opener.
It's part one of a two part, I find that strange........ no need for it. Wait until you can post the entire thing.

sydthebeat

Muahahaha wrote: »

How many ICU beds does Ireland have per 100k population? Think I heard before we are lower than the UK who themselves are lower than some other European countries?

We are adding to that number very day, so any official number from a month ago will be void.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

We are adding to that number very day, so any official number from a month ago will be void.

This is true but at most we can double or maybe triple it. Not increase by a factor of 20 or more.

DeVore

RiseAbove4 wrote: »

So ...

We’re fúcked then?

All we’re really doing is slowing down the inevitable?



(Anyone else’s mental health in absolute bits more and more each day?)

Sweet.Science wrote: »

All very depressing . We are just slowing down Armageddon

No, we are averting it. If we do nothing, its not armeggeddon but it is very very ugly with many deaths.

If we slow it down, we buy ourselves and the health care givers, doctors, nurses, researchers time. Time to treat people. Time to find medicines which work, time to increase beds, time to rest and recuperate themselves (many are getting sick).

We just need time.

deathbomber

DeVore wrote: »

No, we are averting it. If we do nothing, its not armeggeddon but it is very very ugly with many deaths.

If we slow it down, we buy ourselves and the health care givers, doctors, nurses, researchers time. Time to treat people. Time to find medicines which work, time to increase beds, time to rest and recuperate themselves (many are getting sick).

We just need time.

and all of this has been known for weeks, your post is click bait and making anxious people more anxious

growleaves

Well its because of a report from the Imperial College London.

This ICL model is the one being followed by most governments around the world.

Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London also created the model which predicted up to 150,000 people could die from the human form of BSE ('mad cow diseases'). To date less than 200 people have died from it.

4. This is a model. Its a pretty good one but its still only a projection and a prediction. There are reasons why it might be wrong

..and why the models put forward by such fringe outfits as Oxford University might be right.

A Guardian article on the OU model said:

Models based on assumptions in the absence of data can be over-speculative and ‘open to gross over-interpretation’

Very true but also applicable to the worst-case-scenario models put forward by Fauci and Ferguson.

DeVore

Hogzy wrote: »

Am I correct in saying that the orange line above suggests that the UK will peak towards the end of 2020 if the current social measures remain in force? What is driving it to peak so late if all the social measures are adhered to between now and December 2020? I don't understand what is driving the December peak of the orange line in that graph.

The model presumes that social mitigation stops in Sept2020. As a result the virus just goes right back to doing what it was doing and spreads as it would if they did nothing.

This is not a very good part of the model. It should have modeled a more gradual return to "normality" which a general loosening and retightening of the restrictions over time in order to ease out of them. Other parts of the document DO talk about that.

Its instructive to see how just "going back to normal" with a big bang, simply un-pauses the virus and it goes back to spreading (which you would expect if nothing else changes in the meantime).

DeVore

GreeBo wrote: »

So the obvious question seems to be, how long to we need to maintain social distancing to keep the numbers at or below the red line?
i.e. how long is the flat curve?

Thats really not something I can answer, there are far too many variables in the mix to do much more than crystal-ball gaze. Its probably possible to give a "lowest bound" (ie: the very minimum we can expect) but even doing that I'm not comfortable opining on.

Doyler99

DeVore wrote: »

No, we are averting it. If we do nothing, its not armeggeddon but it is very very ugly with many deaths.

If we slow it down, we buy ourselves and the health care givers, doctors, nurses, researchers time. Time to treat people. Time to find medicines which work, time to increase beds, time to rest and recuperate themselves (many are getting sick).

We just need time.

Time for what exactly? Vaccines won't be available for another 12 months at least from what I'm reading. We are what 4 days into this 2 week "lockdown" with a very high chance it will be renewed on a rolling basis every 2 weeks to stop the population going bonkers - The whole situation is just so depressing.

DeVore

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. We need to flatten the curve to prevent huge over capacity on beds and also to give us time to add more capacity.

What am I missing?

Probably not much, but possibly. (You are not everyone tho )

1. The simple scale of the "ask".

2. The way that the most vulnerable will be predominantly pushed into "no beds, no vents" group (as per Italy and other places. We have similar intentions here, cf: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a02c5a-what-is-happening/#ethical-framework-for-decision-making-in-a-pandemic).
As a consequence, IF we end up exceeding the ICU limit, mortality rates suffer disproportionately.

Alf Veedersane

RiseAbove4 wrote: »

So ...

We’re fúcked then?

All we’re really doing is slowing down the inevitable?

No. We slow down the rate of increase in cases to a manageable number. In theory, the same number of cases but over a much longer time frame.

Take a small funnel. Pour a load of water into it quickly....the flow out the bottom is much smaller than what's going in and so lots of water overflows the top.

If you pour water in more slowly, the water goes out the bottom and water doesn't overflow the top.

But the same quantity of water has been through the funnel. In the first instance, where the water went in quickly and overflowed, that overflow is people in need of intensive care but there was no capacity left. The overflow is people dying.





That sounds like a rather bizarre analogy but I think it gives the idea. I think...

Ballso

What a bizarre thread

DeVore

Muahahaha wrote: »

How many ICU beds does Ireland have per 100k population? Think I heard before we are lower than the UK who themselves are lower than some other European countries?

Its hard to say, there are differences in ICU beds, Critical Care Beds, Ventilators etc.

According to this source: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/companies/medtronic-double-production-ventilators-galway-ireland
There are 30 Vents per 100k people here with another ~22 coming.

But critical care beds are something else and sources are poor for that.

DeVore

deathbomber wrote: »

rubbish my wife is a medical professional and i didn't call the op poster dumb, however he is not a medical professional and there are a lot of key factors between the lines and not considered, the post is inaccurate at best

I'm not making any appeals to authority OR medical prounoucements that arent backed by sources (which you can check for yourself).

I am a mathematician, and skilled in model building, and run a company of data scientists. We dont build models for the healthcare community but numbers are numbers.

If you want to challenge any assertions I've made, please, genuinely, feel free to do so.

My intent isnt to scare anyone, just to make people aware of the scale of the task ahead.

DeVore

Augeo wrote: »

By strange, I'm referring to the stay tuned until tomorrow where I'll explain more, that's after the be afraid be very afraid opener.
It's part one of a two part, I find that strange........ no need for it. Wait until you can post the entire thing.

Yeah sorry, I intend to do a post most days to try to bring some science to this discussion. Tomorrows ISNT a second part of todays but it IS more hopeful. I didnt intend to sound like it was a cliff hanger but I also have a company to run, staff to manage from home, a family packed with underlying conditions to tie to chairs and budgets to rip up and redo.

I opened this thread because I was curious. Then saw the Warning. I didn't read on but my heart is still beating harder than a few minutes ago. Have a bit of cop on and put your warning in the thread title.

DeVore

deathbomber wrote: »

and all of this has been known for weeks, your post is click bait and making anxious people more anxious

YOU may have known all this for weeks but in this very thread there are people going "WTF?!".

I'm genuinely trying to explain the scale to people who arent yet aware and think this is all going to be over by Easter. This is a counter point to the "sure why dont we just all go back to the pub and save the economy" crowd. The "flatten the curve" explanations that have been passed around are good but they really hide the breadth of this thing. At some stage we have to stop and face that because its not going away on its own.

DeVore

Deleted User wrote: »

I opened this thread because I was curious. Then saw the Warning. I didn't read on but my heart is still beating harder than a few minutes ago. Have a bit of cop on and put your warning in the thread title.

A. It wont fit. (edit: I made something fit...)

B. If you didnt read the rest of the post, why would the same warning in the title make you any less anxious?

C. As a fellow anxiety sufferer, sorry. That wasnt my intention but this stuff is important.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

A. It wont fit. (edit: I made something fit...)

B. If you didnt read the rest of the post, why would the same warning in the title make you any less anxious?

C. As a fellow anxiety sufferer, sorry. That wasnt my intention but this stuff is important.

Knowing there is a warning in the title tells me its something to stay away from. That's all.
Anxiety was never really a thing for me until all of this but now I'm working hard to keep my head. There are a lot of other people like me.

Earthhorse

DeVore wrote: »

Probably not much, but possibly. (You are not everyone tho )

1. The simple scale of the "ask".

2. The way that the most vulnerable will be predominantly pushed into "no beds, no vents" group (as per Italy and other places. We have similar intentions here, cf: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a02c5a-what-is-happening/#ethical-framework-for-decision-making-in-a-pandemic).
As a consequence, IF we end up exceeding the ICU limit, mortality rates suffer disproportionately.

Okay. I'm pretty sure I knew that already but perhaps others didn't.

I'm not sure what you mean by the scale of the ask. You mean that we are very much in for the long haul here? Again I feel this is widely known even if some people are pushing back against it but maybe you're talking about something else.

DeVore

I think that people are pushing back because they misunderstand the "unmitigated" scenario and think "ah, it wont be that bad".

If you are well informed, then yes... this is not exactly breaking news but there are people here already who are surprised and many others I've seen talking like either they are pyschopathic or (more charitably) not as well informed as you.

Even on this thread we have people saying "yaaawn, knew all this" and other saying "OMG stop scare-mongering"

JoChervil

Doyler99 wrote: »

Time for what exactly? Vaccines won't be available for another 12 months at least from what I'm reading. We are what 4 days into this 2 week "lockdown" with a very high chance it will be renewed on a rolling basis every 2 weeks to stop the population going bonkers - The whole situation is just so depressing.

Time for buying ICU beds for example or building provisional hospitals, so this red line won't be flat, it will rise

Clarabel

I can't open the PDF for whatever reason so I can only see the graph you posted.

It looks like the only difference between the green and orange approach is school and university closures which Ireland is doing.

So why are we on orange and not green path?

Amirani

Muahahaha wrote: »

How many ICU beds does Ireland have per 100k population? Think I heard before we are lower than the UK who themselves are lower than some other European countries?

We've about 9 per 100k these days.

Amirani

DeVore wrote: »

YOn the left is the number of ICU beds needed per 100,000 population.

To be clear, thats not ventilator beds, thats Intensive Care Beds.
Generally the number of vent beds needed is about 1/3rd to 1/6th of the ICU beds. But also few ICU beds have ventilators.

Much more than 1/3 to 1/6 of Covid ICU patients need ventilation. Are you talking about in normal ICU operations?

We've much more ventilators than ICU beds. Every ICU bed will have a ventilator.

greenpilot

deathbomber wrote: »

Somewhat of a dramatic post, it is well known the number of ICU beds per head of population. People should adhere to the guidelines, full stop!

it irritates me when non medical professionals post up and then "explain" reasoning behind such reports, it is actually just as bad as the crap circulating on social media. There is information being made available to various healthcare professionals on a daily basis which you won't see published in mainstream media and for good reason.

Leave it to the professionals and behave and 99% chance you and loved ones will be fine!

You've no idea who deVore is, do you.? No idea.

greenpilot

deathbomber wrote: »

rubbish my wife is a medical professional and i didn't call the op poster dumb, however he is not a medical professional and there are a lot of key factors between the lines and not considered, the post is inaccurate at best

My wife is a Vet. I know Fcuk all about animals.

greenpilot

greenpilot wrote: »

You've no idea who deVore is, do you.? No idea.

Are you or him going to tell us?

DeVore

Who I am is not important. This isnt an appeal to authority.