Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only goal has been to flatten the curve, which we easily did here in Texas. We were so good at flattening the curve that one of the temporary hospitals we had ready in Dallas never got used, and our leaders believe that we can re-open the economy while still keeping the curve 'flat' (i.e. not overruning the hospitals).
So yes, given the circumstances, this is what victory looks like. It's not what everyone wants to hear, but this is our reality until there is a vaccine or cure.
Except there was a lot to be gained by waiting a bit longer. No medical person in the world thought opening when Texas was at its peak was a good idea. The White House guidelines said that a state should see 14 days of declining case numbers. Texas opened up at pretty much its peak.
Except there was a lot to be gained by waiting a bit longer.
Such as?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
No medical person in the world thought opening when Texas was at its peak was a good idea. The White House guidelines said that a state should see 14 days of declining case numbers. Texas opened up at pretty much its peak.
Those metrics are a bit arbitrary, no? For example, let's say Texas had 100K daily cases in the middle of cases, but then started to decline and eventually got those down to 50K daily cases 14 days later, do you think we'd be in a better position to re-open simply because we met the '14 day' guideline?
*For comparison, Texas currently has ~1K daily cases.
Those metrics are a bit arbitrary, no? For example, let's say Texas had 100K daily cases in the middle of cases, but then started to decline and eventually got those down to 50K daily cases 14 days later, do you think we'd be in a better position to re-open simply because we met the '14 day' guideline?
*For comparison, Texas currently has ~1K daily cases.
Do not use the word arbitrary. He is totally consistent on how he looks at things and not at all arbitrary.
For example he goes east from DFW by about 200 miles, west about 625 miles, north about 70 miles, and south about 560 miles. If you try to go North by 610 miles he will completely go off the rails and wonder how that using numbers in Iowa is irrelevant but 625 miles east is fine. You want to go 200 miles east that is fine but you cannot go 200 miles north. And so on and so on.
Personally going 625 miles east or 625 miles north is the exact same thing and if I had issues with 625 miles north I would have issue with 625 miles east and wouldn't use either when discussing numbers.
The only goal has been to flatten the curve, which we easily did here in Texas. We were so good at flattening the curve that one of the temporary hospitals we had ready in Dallas never got used, and our leaders believe that we can re-open the economy while still keeping the curve 'flat' (i.e. not overruning the hospitals).
So yes, given the circumstances, this is what victory looks like. It's not what everyone wants to hear, but this is our reality until there is a vaccine or cure.
If you think the only goal was to flatten the curve then I don't know that you have been paying attention. That was the urgent step 1. The discussion has always been and clearly been 'where do we go from there?'. Will we re-open and infections will re-occur and we shut back down? Will we have rolling relaxation and then re-sheltering? Will we get a drug treatment approved? Will we get a vaccine? Will we re-open and find that our initial data painted a worse picture than where the empirical data is showing us now?
Flattening the curve was only step 1. We didn't know exactly what the next step was because we didn't and still don't know everything we need to about the virus. We can argue about what the next step is, but it's pretty clear that the plan from medical professionals was not 'step 1: shelter and flatten the curve. step 2: step out on the town like nothing ever happened with no further analyzing'
Lower initial case counts, first and foremost. It's easier to manage a pandemic that is in the general public when you are starting with fewer seed cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304
Those metrics are a bit arbitrary, no? For example, let's say Texas had 100K daily cases in the middle of cases, but then started to decline and eventually got those down to 50K daily cases 14 days later, do you think we'd be in a better position to re-open simply because we met the '14 day' guideline?
*For comparison, Texas currently has ~1K daily cases.
The purpose of the 14 day guideline was to ensure that we were past peak virus. Peak virus is not peak daily cases. It's peak active cases. Due to delays between virus transmission and a positive test, the new daily cases we see today were actually acquired 7-10 days ago. If there have been declining cases for 14 straight days, we are almost certainly past peak virus.
Could it be 13 or 15 instead of 14? Sure. But Texas hasn't ever gotten past like day 3, so that's kind of like your doctor telling you that you can go back to work when your fever is below 100 and you saying "Well, 100 vs. 100.1 is arbitrary, so I'm going back to work when it's 104."
The only thing that is arbitrary is a product of a lack of precision, but that level of precision isn't needed to know that Texas is nowhere near the mark.
Btw, here's the 7-day moving average for new daily cases as of a few days ago, along with the 7-day moving average for deaths:
Saying that 13 days vs. 14 days is arbitrary is a bit nonsense when Texas is pretty much at the peak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRockwell
Do not use the word arbitrary. He is totally consistent on how he looks at things and not at all arbitrary.
For example he goes east from DFW by about 200 miles, west about 625 miles, north about 70 miles, and south about 560 miles. If you try to go North by 610 miles he will completely go off the rails and wonder how that using numbers in Iowa is irrelevant but 625 miles east is fine. You want to go 200 miles east that is fine but you cannot go 200 miles north. And so on and so on.
Personally going 625 miles east or 625 miles north is the exact same thing and if I had issues with 625 miles north I would have issue with 625 miles east and wouldn't use either when discussing numbers.
You are completely misrepresenting the discussion. You claimed that using the published data from the state of Iowa might be just as good as using the published data from the state of Texas when making decisions about Texas. You have to twist the discussion because you know that your position was absurd...you are just completely opposed to admitting when you are wrong.
The 7-day moving average for new daily cases is from Worldometers, but for some reason, they stopped doing the moving average a few days ago. The deaths moving average is one I made in excel....took about four minutes using Worldometers' daily death figures.
If you think the only goal was to flatten the curve then I don't know that you have been paying attention. That was the urgent step 1. The discussion has always been and clearly been 'where do we go from there?'. Will we re-open and infections will re-occur and we shut back down? Will we have rolling relaxation and then re-sheltering? Will we get a drug treatment approved? Will we get a vaccine? Will we re-open and find that our initial data painted a worse picture than where the empirical data is showing us now?
Flattening the curve was only step 1. We didn't know exactly what the next step was because we didn't and still don't know everything we need to about the virus.
You didn't disprove what I said. The goal still is to and will continue to be to flatten the curve. That will be the deciding factor as to when and what we re-open and when and what we lockdown again (if need be).
All the questions you are asking are valid and questions I am wondering as well, but my point is that the answer to all of those questions depends on our ability to flatten the curve. Our leaders believe that we can gradually open will still not overruning our hospitals, which is why we have chosen to re-open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbather
We can argue about what the next step is, but it's pretty clear that the plan from medical professionals was not 'step 1: shelter and flatten the curve. step 2: step out on the town like nothing ever happened with no further analyzing'
What was the point of saying this, that's clearly not what I was suggesting and none of our leaders are suggesting that either.
You didn't disprove what I said. The goal still is to and will continue to be to flatten the curve. That will be the deciding factor as to when and what we re-open and when and what we lockdown again (if need be).
All the questions you are asking are valid and questions I am wondering as well, but my point is that the answer to all of those questions depends on our ability to flatten the curve. Our leaders believe that we can gradually open will still not overruning our hospitals, which is why we have chosen to re-open.
What was the point of saying this, that's clearly not what I was suggesting and none of our leaders are suggesting that either.
I think we just have different perspectives of the same situation then. But I think we are saying similar things.
I mostly disagreed with your statement that 'our only goal has been to flatten the curve'.
To me, the goal was to flatten the curve to allow ourselves to catch up. Catch up on PPE for others other than just hospital workers or essential workers. Catch up on testing. Catch up on how to properly staff and run hospitals for more standard and elective procedures in addition to COVID and emergency situations. Learn more about the virus and develop less arbitrary protocols and procedures (what level of testing is required weekly/monthly? At what infection or death rate do we decide to re-open or re-close?).
Instead, we (somewhat) flattened the curve and then re-opened without really addressing most of the concerns in a clear and concise manner. I was expecting more of a plan and less of a 'let's open and see what happens.' Hence not a one step plan of flatten the curve.
Lower initial case counts, first and foremost. It's easier to manage a pandemic that is in the general public when you are starting with fewer seed cases.
But we have managed it, which is why the hospitals were not overrun. If we locked down longer, we would just delay the virus getting to certain people. I hate to say it, but I don't see the advantage of simply delaying the inevitable, especially when our hospitals seem to be capable of taking care of people in need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
The purpose of the 14 day guideline was to ensure that we were past peak virus. Peak virus is not peak daily cases. It's peak active cases. Due to delays between virus transmission and a positive test, the new daily cases we see today were actually acquired 7-10 days ago. If there have been declining cases for 14 straight days, we are almost certainly past peak virus.
Could it be 13 or 15 instead of 14? Sure. But Texas hasn't ever gotten past like day 3, so that's kind of like your doctor telling you that you can go back to work when your fever is below 100 and you saying "Well, 100 vs. 100.1 is arbitrary, so I'm going back to work when it's 104."
The only thing that is arbitrary is a product of a lack of precision, but that level of precision isn't needed to know that Texas is nowhere near the mark.
Btw, here's the 7-day moving average for new daily cases as of a few days ago, along with the 7-day moving average for deaths:
Saying that 13 days vs. 14 days is arbitrary is a bit nonsense when Texas is pretty much at the peak.
If Texas's peak was so high that it overrun our hospitals, I'd be highly opposed to re-opening the economy and I'd actually want stricter lockdowns put in place. That's why I say looking at 14-days after the peak is arbitrary because it doesn't take into account the severity of the peak. Our peak seems to be pretty low which is why our leaders think it makes sense to gradually re-open.
I'm confused why people are so focused on getting past the peak. Isn't there going to be an even bigger peak once things start opening up again? Even if we were to wait the arbitrary 14 days, we would still have a bigger peak as people start to resume their nomal lives, no?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
