IdahoMtnSpyder
Active member
My first thought when I saw a discussion for the first time about 'flattening the curve' is it looks like the downside of doing that is the epidemic continues on longer, but at the end the casualty rate will be much the same. So which is better, a quick devastating crashing blow to humanity, or a slow painful devastation?I think it inevitable that we'll all have some exposure to it before this is all over, that's been the way with virulent virus infections since they started waaay back in the dawn of time!! :yikes: It's just a matter of containing the spread and reducing the total number of those affected/afflicted at any one time to a level low enough that our treatment & care centres can manage the treatment & case load without causing the collapse of the entire system. And don't for one moment think that if we survive this 'initial exposure' phase without causing said collapse that there won't be a rebound/phase 2 (& maybe phase 3?) as all those who missed out the first time round get infected as soon as we all think the worst is past & relax the controls!! It's almost certainly going to be a long haul to beat this one - that is, IF we ever do 'beat' it, rather than simply learn to accommodate it as we've done with so many other diseases.... the Common Cold, Influenza, Smallpox, and many more!! :shocked:
Maybe all the goods movement is a much greater hazard than has been thought. I agree that is the one common connector to all communities. Officials need to look closer and harder at that.