Why did we stop caring about "flattening the curve"?

Yes, I understand the analogy here. It's a poor one, uninformed, and with deliberate exaggerations. Do you understand that? If not, I can explain it to you.

Do you think doctors and nurses grow on trees?

The concept is/was a fallacy. It is here to stay, its Darwin.

Floridian wrote:

Do you think doctors and nurses grow on trees?

No, I don't think doctors and nurses grow on trees.

Do you understand why your previous analogy is a poor one, and exaggerated as well?

Clown World Resident wrote:

maybe this wrote:

Flattening the curve is an initial strategy to minimize the effects of a pending pandemic and by this time we already did it to the extent that we could. It's controversial and unclear as to how successful we were but it's not a good metaphor for an ongoing pandemic.

No, "flatten the curve" was a long-term strategy to achieve herd immunity without overwhelming the hospital system. Considering most of the hospital system is way UNDER capacity, we were not only successful, but TOO good at flattening the curve to achieve the original goal. So the OP is asking why we moved the goalposts so many times.

Yep

Flatten the curve was intended to reduce the overall death toll while a vaccine and effective treatments were introduced. Countries that really did it will come out of this next year with a small fraction of American deaths, relative to population. How's that HEROES Act doing in the Senate?

zxcvxzcv wrote:

Flatten the curve was intended to reduce the overall death toll while a vaccine and effective treatments were introduced. Countries that really did it will come out of this next year with a small fraction of American deaths, relative to population. How's that HEROES Act doing in the Senate?

That's inaccurate. I don't recall any government, medical or media advocates of "flatten the curve" tying it to vaccine development. That would have been ridiculous at the time "flatten the curve" was the policy, as no one had the slightest clue if and when a vaccine could be available (I would argue that we still don't have a clue). I don't recall it being tied to lower death tolls either. The only reasoning I recall being expressed was to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, and give them time to increase capacity and resources. That's the only reasoning that makes sense, and the only one that the American public would have bought into.

I'm assuming you think the analogy was poor due to the number of servers I used. We probably don't need 50x the normal number of doctors and nurses during a covid spike.

Floridian wrote:

I'm assuming you think the analogy was poor due to the number of servers I used. We probably don't need 50x the normal number of doctors and nurses during a covid spike.

Yes, that was one reason your analogy is flawed. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 3 other bigger flaws than the exaggerated numbers you inserted into it. Since you've shown the capacity for self-reflection and criticism, you should try and determine those other 3 as well.

Let's switch to the flaws of your arguments. Many hospitals did prepare during the relative calm in-between spikes. But what no one could have predicted is that America would have widespread Covid spikes across nearly all localities simultaneously. This precludes hospitals from sending staff over to other areas being affected, because every area is overwhelmed at the same time. We blew it.

we flattened the curve vertically.

Long Distance Groyper wrote:

we flattened the curve vertically.

Winner!

(Lightyears ahead of the whiners and bickerers.)

Seems we flattened common sense.

Floridian wrote:

Let's switch to the flaws of your arguments. Many hospitals did prepare during the relative calm in-between spikes. But what no one could have predicted is that America would have widespread Covid spikes across nearly all localities simultaneously. This precludes hospitals from sending staff over to other areas being affected, because every area is overwhelmed at the same time. We blew it.

Your analogy was an attempt to point out flaws in my argument. That's why we were talking about it, in the first place. Now, apparently backing away from your flawed analogy, you want to talk about something else. Why can't we stick to the topic, which was my post, and your criticism of it via an analogy?

Quasi-Boom wrote:

Floridian wrote:

Let's switch to the flaws of your arguments. Many hospitals did prepare during the relative calm in-between spikes. But what no one could have predicted is that America would have widespread Covid spikes across nearly all localities simultaneously. This precludes hospitals from sending staff over to other areas being affected, because every area is overwhelmed at the same time. We blew it.

Your analogy was an attempt to point out flaws in my argument. That's why we were talking about it, in the first place. Now, apparently backing away from your flawed analogy, you want to talk about something else. Why can't we stick to the topic, which was my post, and your criticism of it via an analogy?

They constantly move the goalposts. Because the end game was never about the pandemic.

the media is corrupt wrote:

Quasi-Boom wrote:

Your analogy was an attempt to point out flaws in my argument. That's why we were talking about it, in the first place. Now, apparently backing away from your flawed analogy, you want to talk about something else. Why can't we stick to the topic, which was my post, and your criticism of it via an analogy?

They constantly move the goalposts. Because the end game was never about the pandemic.

That is correct

Quasi-Boom wrote:

The only reasoning I recall being expressed was to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, and give them time to increase capacity and resources. That's the only reasoning that makes sense, and the only one that the American public would have bought into.

It was ventilators. The rationale was that we were going to quickly run out of ventilators.

Which, of course, we now know do more killing than saving.

I am sticking to the topic, which is your post attacking hospitals for not preparing. My analogy is to illustrate that hospitals would have to have extra nurses and doctors waiting around for a spike in order to be fully prepared. I thought you valued "the capacity for self-reflection and criticism." Yet all you want to do is criticize the analogy. I want to talk about your earlier post attacking hospitals, as it does relate to my analogy. How should they have prepared better when the issue at hand is lack of doctors and nurses?

"If this was a regional or a local crisis like we saw early on in New York, nurses would be volunteering to go run to the emergency," he says. "That isn't available anymore because this is everywhere."