[JustAnotherFan]

Sorry if this has been addressed. I haven't read every thread.

I don't see the end game here. Even if we stay indoors for a couple months, as long as there are a small number of people infected won't infections start ramping up again as soon as people return to business as usual? I know the idea is to flatten the curve, but that seems more like a way to help hospitals from becoming overwhelmed rather than prevent everyone from eventually becoming infected if we eventually return to normal. I guess it's to buy more time to find treatments and/or a vaccine, as well. If nothing effective is found any time soon, though, aren't we basically screwed or am I missing something and being overly pessimistic?

It seems to me the only real endgame, barring some great treatment, is that we'll have to return to something that resembles business as usual, but includes continued working from home, where possible, wearing of masks & gloves, and some social distancing.... And just accept some continuous level of infections indefinitely.

Am I missing something?

I think that this article is fabulous and answers your question quite well. It's not a quick read but it is an important one and I wish everyone would read it. It's over a week old, which seems like an eternity with all the news we've been getting, but I think it is spot on. We hope to dance.

"I call the months-long period between the Hammer and a vaccine or effective treatment the Dance because it won’t be a period during which measures are always the same harsh ones. Some regions will see outbreaks again, others won’t for long periods of time. Depending on how cases evolve, we will need to tighten up social distancing measures or we will be able to release them. That is the dance of R: a dance of measures between getting our lives back on track and spreading the disease, one of economy vs. healthcare."

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavir...9337092b56

[JustAnotherFan]

Sorry if this has been addressed. I haven't read every thread.

I don't see the end game here. Even if we stay indoors for a couple months, as long as there are a small number of people infected won't infections start ramping up again as soon as people return to business as usual? I know the idea is to flatten the curve, but that seems more like a way to help hospitals from becoming overwhelmed rather than prevent everyone from eventually becoming infected if we eventually return to normal. I guess it's to buy more time to find treatments and/or a vaccine, as well. If nothing effective is found any time soon, though, aren't we basically screwed or am I missing something and being overly pessimistic?

It seems to me the only real endgame, barring some great treatment, is that we'll have to return to something that resembles business as usual, but includes continued working from home, where possible, wearing of masks & gloves, and some social distancing.... And just accept some continuous level of infections indefinitely.

Am I missing something?

I think that this article is fabulous and answers your question quite well. It's not a quick read but it is an important one and I wish everyone would read it. It's over a week old, which seems like an eternity with all the news we've been getting, but I think it is spot on. We hope to dance.

"I call the months-long period between the Hammer and a vaccine or effective treatment the Dance because it won’t be a period during which measures are always the same harsh ones. Some regions will see outbreaks again, others won’t for long periods of time. Depending on how cases evolve, we will need to tighten up social distancing measures or we will be able to release them. That is the dance of R: a dance of measures between getting our lives back on track and spreading the disease, one of economy vs. healthcare."

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavir...9337092b56