I think the powers-that-be are assuming nearly everyone will get exposed to the virus at some point and these steps are designed to spread out the exposure as long as possible to keep from overwhelming the health care providers. Thirty-plus million Americans needing hospitalization over six months to a year is easier to manage than thirty-plus million Americans needing hospitalization in six weeks.
If you've had coronavirus you can go back to normal after getting over it as you'll then be largely immune. For many less dangerous viruses, just letting everyone expose themselves to get it over with sooner makes some sense. The problem is coronavirus typically requires hospitalization for 10-20 percent of those who get infected. Ten percent of 320 million is 32 million people who would need to be hospitalized. If it's 20% you're looking at 64 million people. We have fewer than a million total hospital beds in America. Because of that, spreading out the exposure as long as possible makes the most sense.
The numbers we've been seeing in terms of the number of infected people and deaths aren't terribly scary, but when you imagine the worst-case scenario with up to 20% of those infected requiring hospitalization, we run out of hospital beds pretty quickly. Slowing down the spread buys time and time is very helpful right now.
Time gives us a chance to develop vaccines, treatments, and build up resources. Those hospitalized tend to need to be on respirators for a bit to recover. While we have nearly a million hospital beds, we certainly don't have a million respirators. Slowing the spread out over as long a period as possible makes this whole thing more manageable.
I think that the fear of what 'could be' is driving the response to this virus. If we can develop/find treatments that preclude the need for hospitalization, life can get back to normal very quickly. If we can't, then stretching this out as long as possible makes the most sense.
If things go badly, a respirator isn't a terribly complicated device and some makeshift devices can be cobbled together pretty quickly to handle a massive bump in the numbers. Hopefully, we don't need that though and can spread the rate of infection out long enough to not overwhelm the healthcare providers.
We could see a scenario where you have two tiers of freedom in America. Those who have had coronavirus and are therefore immune can go back to normal while those who haven't been exposed are still restricted.
Sixty million Americans got H1N1 which is the most recent pandemic to hit us hard. If 10%-20% of them needed hospitalization you'd be looking at six to twelve million hospital beds needed. We only have a million hospital beds. Spreading out those sixty million infections over six months or longer helps to prevent the system from crashing. Having those sixty million infections in six weeks is bad.
As those who were exposed and recovered increase in number, the risk of exposure to those who weren't exposed decreases and the danger of collapsing the healthcare system decreases. It's a timeline type thing. The worst-case scenario is everyone in the country gets infected and 3% die. Three percent of 320 million is nearly ten million people. That's a significant number. H1N1 had 60million infected, but only had 274,000+ hospitalized and only 12,000+ died. If 60 million Americans get coronavirus you're looking at 6-12 million hospitalized and if 3% die you're looking at 1.8 million dead.
Slowing the spread of the infection is a very smart move. It buys time to develop treatments and a vaccine. It could save a lot of lives and prevent the healthcare system from crashing. That's kind fo where we are right now. The numbers that exist right now don't look bad, but if you look ahead a bit, things could get messier. I don't really think this virus is that easily transmitted, based on the numbers we're seeing, but it's better to be safe than sorry. This could go very bad, very quickly.
Fly!!! Eagles!!! Fly!!!
Blogs & Forums
