The size of the curve....is the same. We don't know how big the curve is,,, and if you thought you knew,,, you still don't know because the confounding information of human herd immunity, human intervention etc is a steady alteration of the size and shape of the curve.
The curve is dead. As a practical matter, the only reason to care about it enough to have it influence policy is the fork. We took the right fork. So far, so good...
Having killed the reason to care about the curve... leaves you curve-less... the sky has cleared of curves... it doesn't alter the landscape below the curve, where there is still a problem or two to be dealt with...
you still don't know because the confounding information of human herd immunity, human intervention etc
Exactly. Now we are back to talking about the virus itself, and its functions. The virus writes the rules. Our job is to respond within the constraints of the rules, to win the game. So, while we do what we are already... we focus on improving. We also need to know better than we do now what the rules are ? Because winning is going to boil down to finding some loophole in the rules... which we haven't even read yet. Or, it will consist of discovering some potential we have, in making choices to modify our interaction with the virus... to disadvantage it in our contest with it ?
That means... the assumptions you make in lieu of knowledge... carry a lot of weight. Science isn't the right tool to address that ? Good judgement is.
So, also, a parsing of risks is necessary, based on "what we know"... and "who we know" in relation to the nature of the risks ? An obvious human component in what's happened, so far... still needs to be considered now as a part of that landscape... in the degree the virus isn't acting alone... but has help.
Having taken the right fork... we'll need to rethink optimizing choices on a forward looking basis, that were previously optimized in considering our closing in the approach to the fork. Time to shift gears.
Ensuring the virus is cut off from human support of its efforts... is a primary task. Social distancing and isolation are a part of our behavior modification to cut the virus off... from the incidental support it wins as an exploit of our normal behavior. An analysis of other choices being made... might reveal there are other sources of human effort providing the virus with support ? Or, perhaps there are other modifications we can make... that obviate the need for isolation... or attain "isolation by other means" ?
Again, curing patients... is almost entirely a distraction from prevention. The two are VERY different issues... although ultimately with overlap. Solve the mortality problem... and the nature of human choices at that limit is altered... so we can get back to work... knowing that going to work isn't going to kill us.
We need that focus to include awareness of what our focus IS ? So, looking for drugs that cure... versus vaccinations that prevent... needs upending. We'd be vastly better off looking for drugs that prevent... while defunding the efforts that sustain the research that created the problem...
Below the curve-less sky... is the operative space in which we have a range of potentials in choices... about how we direct our post-fork focus and energy.
Time is a function... history matters... as does its preservation to properly inform our use of it in the future.
Time is inexorable... which doesn't mean there is only one vector in the operative space our minds occupy ?
The curve has only to do with the number of patients seeking care. It has zip, zero, nada, nothing to do with the number of people infected by COVID-19.
The virus writes the rules. It has a plan for how many people are infected, versus how many become ill, and the two are inherently connected by the fact that the virus requires that they are, as it follows its plan.
Stop trying to control the virus... by thinking you can control its rule set. You cannot. It is what it is. The only caveat to that... is that the virus is also a dynamic... so, also, it is what it will become... so don't ignore " phylogenetic methods could" "help predict [the] future".
Focus your energy... on things you can control: 1. learning the rules the virus imposes, 2. expanding the operative space in which humans choices enable us to respond... by broadening our thinking, by recognizing and mapping real and artificial barriers, by obviating self imposed limits... 3. understanding the virus-human interactions... to sort out choices that, or actors who, are providing the virus with support of its insurgency... 4. include in 3 above an awareness of choices made in communications... as either your communications, as those of others, are "on team anti-virus"... or show who is working for some other team.
The curve having been flattened... does NOT mean "we're out of the woods"... nor does it mean the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a train.
The greatest risks still lie ahead... in the known unknown, and unknown unknown.
I'll limit my discussion of that... to the mention of my prior posts... and two bullet points.
One, corona viruses are already well known for a feature set... that includes the "response to the virus" by the immune system, in itself fostering greater future susceptibility to future infections... by the same or related viruses.
Two, binary choices exist, but they are not the only choices that exist... although it may often appear a choice is part of a binary set... to those unaware of the larger context in reality enabling broader sets of choices... to those who are more aware.
. |
