[Farm93]

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.

Mitigation efforts may only delay the ramp in some circumstances, though the best would delay ramp AND flatten the curve.

I think the Minnesota governor wanted to make sure that the citizens understand that the delay of the ramp-up alone justify the executive orders.   That way if the ramp is ultimately steep and they are unable to place some patients into ICU beds, they can likely point to an increase in the number of ICU beds that saved at least a few more lives than the base case.

Minnesota nice is a real thing.

My guess is the government officials believe that merely delaying the ramp-up will be enough to get the citizens of Minnesota to comply.  By focusing on the benefits of the delay the officials will not need to later justify the delay in that flatten the curve vs economic growth type debate. 

In Minnesota they will note they made the call for efforts on the benefits of delaying the curve, and as long as a few more ICU beds are available 2 or 3 weeks later they will have the objective and easily quantifiable endpoint they need to justify their decision.

[Farm93]

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.

Mitigation efforts may only delay the ramp in some circumstances, though the best would delay ramp AND flatten the curve.

I think the Minnesota governor wanted to make sure that the citizens understand that the delay of the ramp-up alone justify the executive orders.   That way if the ramp is ultimately steep and they are unable to place some patients into ICU beds, they can likely point to an increase in the number of ICU beds that saved at least a few more lives than the base case.

Minnesota nice is a real thing.

My guess is the government officials believe that merely delaying the ramp-up will be enough to get the citizens of Minnesota to comply.  By focusing on the benefits of the delay the officials will not need to later justify the delay in that flatten the curve vs economic growth type debate. 

In Minnesota they will note they made the call for efforts on the benefits of delaying the curve, and as long as a few more ICU beds are available 2 or 3 weeks later they will have the objective and easily quantifiable endpoint they need to justify their decision.