[oldalum]

What was most stunning to me was Minnesota doesn’t believe it can flatten the curve at all. It believes the only option available is to put off the curve’s peak from hitting 3 weeks later than it would if the state did nothing to mitigate spread. 

important to define terms. I think "flatten the curve" usually is being used to refer to the plot of new infections/day. This presentation does not show such a graph; it appears to show a graph of prevalence of infected persons. I do not understand why their "significant mitigation" scenario results in the same steep prevalence curve and peak as the "no mitigation" scenario; it shouldn't. Can someone please explain? Thanks.

[oldalum]

What was most stunning to me was Minnesota doesn’t believe it can flatten the curve at all. It believes the only option available is to put off the curve’s peak from hitting 3 weeks later than it would if the state did nothing to mitigate spread. 

important to define terms. I think "flatten the curve" usually is being used to refer to the plot of new infections/day. This presentation does not show such a graph; it appears to show a graph of prevalence of infected persons. I do not understand why their "significant mitigation" scenario results in the same steep prevalence curve and peak as the "no mitigation" scenario; it shouldn't. Can someone please explain? Thanks.