07fta07 said:

---

I think that's just a start and will be extended much like schools went from a week to a month to maybe/probably the rest of the school year. All the talk we hear is that this thing is gonna continue into the summer, so it may help delay but once everyone rushes back out I think you're looking at a restart and we'll be right back where we are today.

---

I think the victory we are hoping for is to avoid medical overload and even if it starts again perhaps this will accomplish that if we started soon enough.

Let's just close everything until we get rid of all infectious diseases. I really hate it when folks have to die!

Why 15 days?

It has to do with the projections for when this peaks. It's expected to peak in mid to late april. So the next 15 days will determine who gets infected leading up to that peak period. In other words the height of the strain on our medical infrastructure will be determined over the next 15 days. After that period there's not a whole lot more we can do to flatten out what the peak of this will be. That's always been the big fear here, running out of beds and ventialtors in hospitals, so the next 15 days will determnie how bad it will be. Just stay home for 15 days.

I guess my question is if it's supposed to peak mid to late April and we turn everyone loose again after March 31, aren't we just pushing the peak out to May or June or whatever?

07fta07 said:

---

I guess my question is if it's supposed to peak mid to late April and we turn everyone loose again after March 31, aren't we just pushing the peak out to May or June or whatever?

---

there will be some level of infection over the next 15 days. The point is it will never get worse than what happens now. Pushing it put is exactly what we want instead of 100,000 infected over the next 15 days we'd much rather have 50,000 every 15 days or 33,000 every 15 days. The same number pf people get infected we just want it spread out over a longer period. Once the govt believes we have the capacity and we get past this peak period, then they'll start relacing these resteictions.

I don't get the claim it won't get worse than what happens now. If we release people back into normal routines and not enough people have been exposed to slow the infection growth rate then what is slowing things down after restrictions are relaxed.

That's also counter to all the points about flattening the curve, which would require the time axis to be elongated and I can't imagine 15 days is sufficient elongation for something that we are shutting everything down for.

Fenrir said:

---

I don't get the claim it won't get worse than what happens now. If we release people back into normal routines and not enough people have been exposed to slow the infection growth rate then what is slowing things down after restrictions are relaxed.

That's also counter to all the points about flattening the curve, which would require the time axis to be elongated and I can't imagine 15 days is sufficient elongation for something that we are shutting everything down for.

---

If we do nothing, the peak now is 100,000 over the next 15 days. If we slow this down, then the peak for the next 15 day interval is say 75,000, then the next peak is 50,000. It makes sense. The pool of potential people to get infected continues to decrease over time, so the peak will decrease over time as well.

the reality of what they are hping for is that over the next 15 days we still get alot infectedbut we reduce it by x%. We also increase our capacity by x%. Hopefully we can close the gap between the two.

1.3^15 is 51
2^15 is over 30,000.
If social distancing and isolation of everybody for 2 weeks means we have a 50 fold increase in the number of cases instead of a 31,000 fold increase then the fallout to the economy is likely better by taking extreme measure for 15 days

plus.the longer we delay the peak the more time we have to increase our capacity. At some point as capacity increases and the potential peak decreases, we'll be able to handle it. Also, these peak periods won't hit nationwide at the same time. So as Washington State starts to wind down, resources can be shifted out of that State to say Texas for.example which may be two weeks behind Washington.

Sq 17 said:

---

1.3^15 is 51
2^15 is over 30,000.
If social distancing and isolation of everybody for 2 weeks means we have a 50 fold increase in the number of cases instead of a 31,000 fold increase then the fallout to the economy is likely better by taking extreme measure for 15 days

---

Yes. the economic impact has to be factored in, which is very hard to quantify. Obviously, the shorter timeframe we can limit the pain, the better for the economy,.

what is the outcome if we do nothing as some people suggest?

How is that picture any better for the economy?

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

what is the outcome if we do nothing as some people suggest?

How is that picture any better for the economy?

---

Alot more people die, but this thing burns out much faster. The majority of people.that die are elderly, and don't have jobs. The wage earners go back to work sooner. It's a sad reality.

How about the next global pandemic, we try the 'do nothing' approach and let what happens happen. Then we can all compare the two approaches and argue whether the experience of Pandemic #1 or Pandemic #2 sucked worse.

For now is we are going with Approach #1 because WHO and the CDC of almost every government in the world - China, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and now the States - has decided 'flattening the curve' with aggressive social distancing is the way to go here.

JB99 said:

---

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

what is the outcome if we do nothing as some people suggest?

How is that picture any better for the economy?

---

Alot more people die, but this thing burns out much faster. The majority of people.that die are elderly, and don't have jobs. The wage earners go back to work sooner. It's a sad reality.

---

Many wage earners still love their living parents and grandparents. That is also a reality.

JB99 said:

---

Why 15 days?

It has to do with the projections for when this peaks. It's expected to peak in mid to late april. So the next 15 days will determine who gets infected leading up to that peak period. In other words the height of the strain on our medical infrastructure will be determined over the next 15 days. After that period there's not a whole lot more we can do to flatten out what the peak of this will be. That's always been the big fear here, running out of beds and ventialtors in hospitals, so the next 15 days will determnie how bad it will be. Just stay home for 15 days.

---

Are governmental authorities going to follow this logic. Things have to start moving again at some point or the cure is going to be worse than the disease.

Also if it gets as bad as projected people won't leave their house even if the govt would allow it. Regular economic activity is going to stop either way.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

JB99 said:

---

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

what is the outcome if we do nothing as some people suggest?

How is that picture any better for the economy?

---

Alot more people die, but this thing burns out much faster. The majority of people.that die are elderly, and don't have jobs. The wage earners go back to work sooner. It's a sad reality.

---

Many wage earners still love their living parents and grandparents. That is also a reality.

---

I'm not arguing for us to do nothing. Just answering the question. I don't want my parents to die either. It is a sad reality either way. People are going to have alot of pain economically. The point is there's no perfect outcome, so when you hear people *****ing about how we should have done X vs. Y . We've decided as a nation and really the world.that the econmic impact is worth the sacrifice to save lives. We don't always go to these extremes, flu season for example. Apprently, the projected death toll.if we do nothing is beyond what we can accept.

I hear what you're saying. Many people will say "every life it worth it!!!", yet 20k to 60k die from the flu in the US, even after taking measures like vaccinations and anti-virals.

Why didn't we make any drastic changes to society, with significant economic impact, over those people?

Captain Pablo said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

We're not ending the curve. We're trying to flatten it.

But, again, so much of everything depends on your ability to test a lot of people.

---

EVERYBODY understands

What people need to realize is if you continue to drag this thing out for three or four months, there's not going to be anything left of this country to rebuild

---

At this point, social distancing is the only tool we have to flatten the curve. As tests become more readily available, other tools can be used and the social distancing recommendations can be eased. It will be a little while before we're fully back to normal, but we won't need the current level of isolation for 6 months...or probably even 6 weeks, at least not nationwide.

NASAg03 said:

---

I hear what you're saying. Many people will say "every life it worth it!!!", yet 20k to 60k die from the flu in the US, even after taking measures like vaccinations and anti-virals.

Why didn't we make any drastic changes to society, with significant economic impact, over those people?

---

Those people didn't die due to overloaded healthcare resources. If/when our system is overloaded, we will see people die from this that otherwise would not.

bay fan said:

---

Pretty sure it was a shot in the dark. Buckle up, it's not going to be 15 days but several months if we are lucky.

---

And nothing will be left if we keep a country of 350,000,000 shut down for even 30-60 days

You have no idea how bad it's gonna get, and I'm not talking about the virus

thelaw4 said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

thelaw4 said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Your point being, some one in your house is now symptomatic. So you know you should stay your ass at home longer.

---

No, im not talking about someone with symptoms, im talking about asymptomatic covid....

---

I'm really not seeing what's difficult about this, so my apologies if this seems dismissive. Just trying to break this down:

- you and your family stay home for 15 days, but someone is inflected but not showing symptoms.
- somewhere around day 10-12, someone has cough, fever, shortness of breath. (Assume this person eventually tests positive).
- on day 14, no one else in your family is showing symptoms.

Why do you think 15 days is an all clear for you and your asymptomatic family?

Play the same scenario with no sick people on Day15. Why do you think there is an asymptomatic carrier?

This is about flushing it out of hiding.

---

Here is some information that you should read
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread/index.html

Read this full thread coming from Italian Virology Director

You are making an incorrect assumption that covid is only spread by people with symptoms- when that is not the case at all

---

Is that accurate that as low as 10% will actually show symptoms? I would think that is pretty good news. Sounds like a large number could have it and never even go get tested from lack of symptoms. I would imagine the mortality rate should actually be lower than we know from current numbers. All the people not going to get tested aren't being added to the denominator.

France has done a house lockdown nationwide for 15 days (as of now), and deployed 100,000 police to make sure the public complies.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20200316/lockdown-what-exactly-do-frances-new-coronavirus-rules-mean

Quote:

---

Everyone in France has been ordered to stay inside their homes, venturing out only for essential reasons. The restrictions start at 12 noon on Tuesday, March 17th.
At present the restriction is only for 15 days, but the president made it clear this could be extended if necessary.
People will be allowed to venture outside, but only for good reasons - some mentioned were food shopping, medical appointments and exercise, although that must be done alone.
Going out to meet friends and family will no longer be possible, the president told the country.
People who cannot work from home will also be permitted to travel for work, although earlier closures of shops, bars and cafs will mean people do not have work to go to.
People breaking these restrictions will face a fine that will start at 38 but could be increased to up to 135.
Anyone outside will need to present a certificate, available to download from the government's website tonight, stating their reason for being out (although a hand written version could be accepted for those people who do not have printers).

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

thelaw4 said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

thelaw4 said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Your point being, some one in your house is now symptomatic. So you know you should stay your ass at home longer.

---

No, im not talking about someone with symptoms, im talking about asymptomatic covid....

---

I'm really not seeing what's difficult about this, so my apologies if this seems dismissive. Just trying to break this down:

- you and your family stay home for 15 days, but someone is inflected but not showing symptoms.
- somewhere around day 10-12, someone has cough, fever, shortness of breath. (Assume this person eventually tests positive).
- on day 14, no one else in your family is showing symptoms.

Why do you think 15 days is an all clear for you and your asymptomatic family?

Play the same scenario with no sick people on Day15. Why do you think there is an asymptomatic carrier?

This is about flushing it out of hiding.

---

Here is some information that you should read
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread/index.html

Read this full thread coming from Italian Virology Director

You are making an incorrect assumption that covid is only spread by people with symptoms- when that is not the case at all

---

Is that accurate that as low as 10% will actually show symptoms? I would think that is pretty good news. Sounds like a large number could have it and never even go get tested from lack of symptoms. I would imagine the mortality rate should actually be lower than we know from current numbers. All the people not going to get tested aren't being added to the denominator.

---

.

10% of those tested at the time of testing. Doesn't say they resolve infection with no symptoms ever.

Also don't think that's great news. The fears related to overwhelming medical facilities is based on the numbers that are reported. If 90% of the population is spreading it completely covertly, and the remaining 10% is bad off enough to wreck systems...machines are gonna fail.

2PacShakur said:

---

They also said it's likely to be extended at the end. All this panic and hysteria is a result of not having a test readily available (plus refusal to use the WHO test for whatever reason) and we've been flying blind for the last month and a half. The measure is to blunt the rise in new exposures and also to find out what are the true numbers. I think towards the end of this week even, the numbers will continue to grow and people will realize why we are locking down.

---

I had this explained to me, because I was wondering it myself. The issue with the WHO/China/Germany tests were that they had too many false negatives, which is really, really bad in this situation. It wasn't sensitive enough and you had to have a pretty high viral load. You could be showing mild symptoms and still be negative. It might as well be worthless.

China's protocol was that they tested you 3 times over 10 days(?) if you weren't hospitalized. During that time, you had to quarantine. So, you had to quarantine regardless of whether you got an all clear at the end. In other words, it doesn't change the decision tree. If you were hospitalized, they also tested you twice over 14 days after you were released. Again, you were quarantined at home.

Basically, a lot of quarantining regardless of testing. The CDC thought they could make a better test, but obviously botched it. However, in the end, it's not going to matter. After H1N1, the CDC said they didn't feel the need to test extensively because it had already been established in the population. Testing is just clinical at that point. Testing for tracking is just academic and a waste of resources. This is the same playbook the CDC is using for this, but they're much more heavily scrutinized under social media.

JB99 said:

---

07fta07 said:

---

I guess my question is if it's supposed to peak mid to late April and we turn everyone loose again after March 31, aren't we just pushing the peak out to May or June or whatever?

---

there will be some level of infection over the next 15 days. The point is it will never get worse than what happens now. Pushing it put is exactly what we want instead of 100,000 infected over the next 15 days we'd much rather have 50,000 every 15 days or 33,000 every 15 days. The same number pf people get infected we just want it spread out over a longer period. Once the govt believes we have the capacity and we get past this peak period, then they'll start relacing these resteictions.

---

The flaw in this thinking is that it generalizes across the entire country. Seattle isn't in the same place on the cycle as small town Kansas.

The "lockdowns" should be tailored to each community based on the conditions in that community, and the actual peak is going to differ depending upon where that community is in the cycle.

jjtrcka22 said:

---

thelaw4 said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

thelaw4 said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Your point being, some one in your house is now symptomatic. So you know you should stay your ass at home longer.

---

No, im not talking about someone with symptoms, im talking about asymptomatic covid....

---

I'm really not seeing what's difficult about this, so my apologies if this seems dismissive. Just trying to break this down:

- you and your family stay home for 15 days, but someone is inflected but not showing symptoms.
- somewhere around day 10-12, someone has cough, fever, shortness of breath. (Assume this person eventually tests positive).
- on day 14, no one else in your family is showing symptoms.

Why do you think 15 days is an all clear for you and your asymptomatic family?

Play the same scenario with no sick people on Day15. Why do you think there is an asymptomatic carrier?

This is about flushing it out of hiding.

---

Here is some information that you should read
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread/index.html

Read this full thread coming from Italian Virology Director

You are making an incorrect assumption that covid is only spread by people with symptoms- when that is not the case at all

---

Is that accurate that as low as 10% will actually show symptoms? I would think that is pretty good news. Sounds like a large number could have it and never even go get tested from lack of symptoms. I would imagine the mortality rate should actually be lower than we know from current numbers. All the people not going to get tested aren't being added to the denominator.

---

Yeah, people are misinterpreting the significance of what a huge number of asymptomatic carriers would mean.

I see people worried about what a 90% asymptomatic infection would mean for tracing and transmission efforts, without recognizing what that would mean for herd immunity and the end to this pandemic.

If 90% are asymptomatic, then the virus can pass thru most of the community without a negative health impact and build up a robust herd immunity in fairly short order. Isolate the most at-risk members during this period and it could be a much quicker end to the major societal disruption than projected.

But let's see if a 90% asymptomatic number bears out.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

thelaw4 said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

thelaw4 said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Your point being, some one in your house is now symptomatic. So you know you should stay your ass at home longer.

---

No, im not talking about someone with symptoms, im talking about asymptomatic covid....

---

I'm really not seeing what's difficult about this, so my apologies if this seems dismissive. Just trying to break this down:

- you and your family stay home for 15 days, but someone is inflected but not showing symptoms.
- somewhere around day 10-12, someone has cough, fever, shortness of breath. (Assume this person eventually tests positive).
- on day 14, no one else in your family is showing symptoms.

Why do you think 15 days is an all clear for you and your asymptomatic family?

Play the same scenario with no sick people on Day15. Why do you think there is an asymptomatic carrier?

This is about flushing it out of hiding.

---

Here is some information that you should read
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread/index.html

Read this full thread coming from Italian Virology Director

You are making an incorrect assumption that covid is only spread by people with symptoms- when that is not the case at all

---

Is that accurate that as low as 10% will actually show symptoms? I would think that is pretty good news. Sounds like a large number could have it and never even go get tested from lack of symptoms. I would imagine the mortality rate should actually be lower than we know from current numbers. All the people not going to get tested aren't being added to the denominator.

---

.

10% of those tested at the time of testing. Doesn't say they resolve infection with no symptoms ever.

Also don't think that's great news. The fears related to overwhelming medical facilities is based on the numbers that are reported. If 90% of the population is spreading it completely covertly, and the remaining 10% is bad off enough to wreck systems...machines are gonna fail.

---

Coughing is still going to be the primary form of spread. People with symptoms are shedding way more virus and are way more likely to spread it to others than people without symptoms.

Snap E Tom said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

They also said it's likely to be extended at the end. All this panic and hysteria is a result of not having a test readily available (plus refusal to use the WHO test for whatever reason) and we've been flying blind for the last month and a half. The measure is to blunt the rise in new exposures and also to find out what are the true numbers. I think towards the end of this week even, the numbers will continue to grow and people will realize why we are locking down.

---

I had this explained to me, because I was wondering it myself. The issue with the WHO/China/Germany tests were that they had too many false negatives, which is really, really bad in this situation. It wasn't sensitive enough and you had to have a pretty high viral load. You could be showing mild symptoms and still be negative. It might as well be worthless.

China's protocol was that they tested you 3 times over 10 days(?) if you weren't hospitalized. During that time, you had to quarantine. So, you had to quarantine regardless of whether you got an all clear at the end. In other words, it doesn't change the decision tree. If you were hospitalized, they also tested you twice over 14 days after you were released. Again, you were quarantined at home.

Basically, a lot of quarantining regardless of testing. The CDC thought they could make a better test, but obviously botched it. However, in the end, it's not going to matter. After H1N1, the CDC said they didn't feel the need to test extensively because it had already been established in the population. Testing is just clinical at that point. Testing for tracking is just academic and a waste of resources. This is the same playbook the CDC is using for this, but they're much more heavily scrutinized under social media.

---

It was the Chinese test that produced false negatives, not WHO. It's also understandable the CDC didn't extensively validate the H1N1 test and implement it to track H1N1 as H1N1 is far less virulent than even the seasonal flu (why put the resources for something less virulent than "seasonal" flu.) Testing for C-19 for the purposes of tracking is not academic and not a waste, and is exactly what we needed earlier on to identify/isolate people or populations. We should have locked down earlier seeing how blind we were flying.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

How about the next global pandemic, we try the 'do nothing' approach and let what happens happen. Then we can all compare the two approaches and argue whether the experience of Pandemic #1 or Pandemic #2 sucked worse.

For now is we are going with Approach #1 because WHO and the CDC of almost every government in the world - China, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and now the States - has decided 'flattening the curve' with aggressive social distancing is the way to go here.

---

But did they consult the experts on this board? Lol

Sq 17 said:

---

Also if it gets as bad as projected people won't leave their house even if the govt would allow it. Regular economic activity is going to stop either way.

---

That's the truth.

bay fan said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

Also if it gets as bad as projected people won't leave their house even if the govt would allow it. Regular economic activity is going to stop either way.

---

That's the truth.

---

I tend to agree with this....I suspect the damage has already been done. Many small businesses (of all types) are done for good and will never function again.

Additionally, we'll probably never know the truth about what would have happened had we gone about our business as normal and just isolated the most vulnerable non-productive group. It will always just be speculation.

Seems we've set our course at this point.

bay fan said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

Also if it gets as bad as projected people won't leave their house even if the govt would allow it. Regular economic activity is going to stop either way.

---

That's the truth.

---

No it's not

The opposite will happen

Captain Pablo said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

Also if it gets as bad as projected people won't leave their house even if the govt would allow it. Regular economic activity is going to stop either way.

---

That's the truth.

---

No it's not

The opposite will happen

---

I know plenty of folks who were starting to hunker down before the waterfall of government announcements over the past 3 or so days.

And having talked with some of them, much of it was totally based on health concerns (rather than "we're about to get shutdown, I'm locking the bunker before the madness").

If the serious health concerns are proven true, plenty of folks will absolutely be slow and timid getting back to normal.