"It's flattening the curve, not shrinking the area under the curve"
That's not necessarily true. Numberphile recently did a piece on "The Coronavirus Curve." It describes "the so-called SIR Model being used to predict the spread of cornavirus."
At https://youtu.be/k6nLfCbAzgo?t=920 (15:20 into the video), they point out that in the model, if the infection rate is reduced hugely, not only does the peak get smaller, but so does the total number of infections.
That model doesn't account for other countries not following the same (presumably strict) procedures. We aren't islands, and even if there is a short term suppression in your current country, it seems unlikely you're going to quarantine every incoming flight (and its crew!) for 2 weeks per flight. I suspect any model that doesn't result in the majority of the population getting it eventually is probably wrong.
Sure, but my point wasn't that the SIR Model is correct (elsewhere I wrote 'that's a highly simplified model, might not be true, etc., etc'), it was to show that dkarl's model - flattening the curve doesn't change the overall number of infected people - isn't necessarily correct.
Thanks for the link, that was a fascinating watch, but I don't think they're modeling a return to normal life there. They assume a transmission rate that is decreased by social distancing measures, and they leave the transmission rate constant over time. I think that means they are modeling what happens if we continue the same social distancing practices indefinitely, rather than a return to normal life.
Another way of looking at it is that they are modeling herd immunity under social distancing, which is achieved at a lower infection rate than herd immunity under normal social behavior.
I believe it's the latter - a fast spread will overshoot past the minimum herd immunity, while a slower spread won't, thus resulting in fewer overall deaths and ICU visits.
In other words, shrinking the area under the curve while flattening the curve.
Of course, that's a highly simplified model, might not be true, etc., etc. But it gives me, a leftist, some support for my belief that some "social distancing for as long as it takes" is a more reasonable viewpoint than no social distancing.
That's not necessarily true. Numberphile recently did a piece on "The Coronavirus Curve." It describes "the so-called SIR Model being used to predict the spread of cornavirus."
At https://youtu.be/k6nLfCbAzgo?t=920 (15:20 into the video), they point out that in the model, if the infection rate is reduced hugely, not only does the peak get smaller, but so does the total number of infections.