[BostonCard]

[Reducing the transmission flattens the curve, delays the peak, and reduces the total number of transmissions.
BC

Does that assume the conditions leading to flattening the curve remain in place?

If yes, well . . . that's sort of a problem, isn't it?

If no, then why is everyone worried about a second flare up if restrictions are loosened?

Fundamentally, don't we want to flatten curve to point where we feel comfortable with hospital resources (which may vary by locale - see another post on SC County excess ventilators) and then ease off restrictions?  Because this is a sports board (at heart), perhaps folks are equating easing back on restrictions with allowing 50,000 in a stadium to watch a game or match.  Um . . . no.  I'm not sure that will ever come back - or at least until some kind of vaccine (artificial or natural - from virus running its course) is secured.

But that doesn't mean sports won't/can't go forward.  It can.  With no attendance; then very limited; etc.  The good news for Stanford fans who like to attend contests in person:  we'll be back to "normal" before most other schools!

In a word, the answer is yes, the models that predict flattening the curve say you need to keep your transmission rate down until the end of the pandemic.

Now, in practice, there will almost certainly be some titration.  Once we are on the down-slope of the curve, you can start to relax the most onerous restrictions.  IF nothing else, the models predict that each "wave" will be slightly less bad than the one preceeding it, if for no other reason that (unless this virus is weird and recovery doesn't confer immunity) after each wave some fraction of the population will now be immune and no longer able to transmit it.  In practice, for it to make a difference, you need a substantial fraction to be exposed, and that seems unlikely (though we won't know for sure until we see serology testing).

However, it will be tricky to get the balance right.   Remember, what you see (even if you test extensively) is about two weeks behind what actually happened, because there is a delay between exposure and measurable virus shed and symptoms.  So, by the time you react to a small increase in cases it might be too late, and you will have a full blown wave.  The best you can hope for is that with some social distancing measures plus generally better hygiene, even if it flares up again, the rate of exponential growth (the doubling time) will be more like 7 days than 3 days.

BC

[BostonCard]

[Reducing the transmission flattens the curve, delays the peak, and reduces the total number of transmissions.
BC

Does that assume the conditions leading to flattening the curve remain in place?

If yes, well . . . that's sort of a problem, isn't it?

If no, then why is everyone worried about a second flare up if restrictions are loosened?

Fundamentally, don't we want to flatten curve to point where we feel comfortable with hospital resources (which may vary by locale - see another post on SC County excess ventilators) and then ease off restrictions?  Because this is a sports board (at heart), perhaps folks are equating easing back on restrictions with allowing 50,000 in a stadium to watch a game or match.  Um . . . no.  I'm not sure that will ever come back - or at least until some kind of vaccine (artificial or natural - from virus running its course) is secured.

But that doesn't mean sports won't/can't go forward.  It can.  With no attendance; then very limited; etc.  The good news for Stanford fans who like to attend contests in person:  we'll be back to "normal" before most other schools!

In a word, the answer is yes, the models that predict flattening the curve say you need to keep your transmission rate down until the end of the pandemic.

Now, in practice, there will almost certainly be some titration.  Once we are on the down-slope of the curve, you can start to relax the most onerous restrictions.  IF nothing else, the models predict that each "wave" will be slightly less bad than the one preceeding it, if for no other reason that (unless this virus is weird and recovery doesn't confer immunity) after each wave some fraction of the population will now be immune and no longer able to transmit it.  In practice, for it to make a difference, you need a substantial fraction to be exposed, and that seems unlikely (though we won't know for sure until we see serology testing).

However, it will be tricky to get the balance right.   Remember, what you see (even if you test extensively) is about two weeks behind what actually happened, because there is a delay between exposure and measurable virus shed and symptoms.  So, by the time you react to a small increase in cases it might be too late, and you will have a full blown wave.  The best you can hope for is that with some social distancing measures plus generally better hygiene, even if it flares up again, the rate of exponential growth (the doubling time) will be more like 7 days than 3 days.

BC