I am beginning to think that the international lockdowns may have been a colossal mistake.
The primary objective of “flattening the curve” was to protect health services, not to minimize deaths.
In theory, flattening the curve should have given the same number of deaths but over a longer period of time. In practice, the flattened curve has kept the pandemic alive for much longer than necessary. The lockdowns have ensured that no general immunity has been achieved anywhere. The total number of deaths could well have been lower with a more intense but short-lived pandemic.
“Flattening the curve” Theory
“Flattening the curve” Actual?
The assumption that the curve can be flattened without affecting the area under the curve is speculative and unjustified. The two curves cannot be equated. The reality is that extending the tail of the curve by attempting to flatten the peak may have done more damage than good.
Have the lockdowns actually saved any lives?
Or have they extended the pandemic such that more lives have been lost than if there had been no lockdowns. And at the cost of a global economic shutdown. Fewer lives lost per day but for a very, very long time as opposed to many lives lost per day over a much shorter period of time.
Flattening the curve may well have maximized the number of deaths.
The Chief Minister of Karnataka State in India actually made some sense yesterday when he said:
“There will be no lockdown in Bengaluru from tomorrow. However, I humbly request the people of Karnataka — with folded hands — to wear masks and to practice social distancing. This is the only way to combat COVID-19, at least till a vaccine is found, …….. People can resume work and businesses as usual, outside containment zones. A stable economy is essential for the state to combat the coronavirus pandemic effectively.”
Indeed. Protecting a health service in a collapsed economy is not possible.
Tags: coronavirus, covid-19, Wuhan virus
The k2p blog 