The Mirage of the Flattening Curve
In an internet haemorrhaging with Covid-19 theories, models and questionable facts it is imperative to define the parameters we are using to judge this global pandemic.
Predictive modelling, infection statistics and the flattening curve are being offered as mental life boats in uncharted seas.
In simplistic terms, predictive modelling in epidemiology is a mathematical attempt to understand the potential spread and life cycle of a virus and forecast elements of the outbreak. It accesses past and current statistics and builds possible scenarios.
Science is a mutating experiment based on constantly changing variables. It is not cemented in a present moment. In other words, like life, it assesses options and variables to determine how best to move forward.
Imagine your college applications. You have a basic set of variables; grades, costs, distance etc. coupled with your targeted goals. You reduce your options/choices to ones that are reasonable. Then you throw everything you have at them and do some mega mental begging to the universe. New variables beyond your control such as college administrators, competition and available places are now in play and your end results vary, regardless of how much incense you burned.
The idea of slowing a virus’ spread is known as “flattening the curve.” It is not a cure. It is an observation of how implemented controls are working to slow the viral spread. It is a tool in the toolbox.
To date, global governments are mapping plans to reopen economies, based on their individual “flattening curves”. The concept is being used as a political tool and as such, is highly deceptive. Especially in an interconnected global view. A flatter curve assumes the same number of people will get infected, over a longer period of time, IF the tools used to create the flattening curve remain implemented. Note that big IF.
And there is the thorn in the rosebush. Cautious governments are testing options to “re-open” their countries. Balancing the lives of their populations with costs to their economy. Politics combined with social and cultural behaviours are primary factors in how each of these countries internally will succeed or, fail. This does not account for external global responses.
Incremental plans enable assessment of the viral response. Even under these careful administrations, there will be deaths. But, less. If the “curve” rises again, they can revert back to the previous toolbox of social distancing, shutdowns and masks, with new knowledge and possible new options for the future.
Misguided directives for ‘back to normal” immediate, full opening approaches are in effect — “kill orders”. A short-term, flawed response. The bait of “going back to work” will not bring “normal” back. The virus will not magically vanish from the streets overnight. The economy will not be saved and the curve will rise again exponentially causing a second and third shut-down. People will die in the thousands, again.
How many deaths is a government willing to accept? What is the moral cost of individualism? How many deaths can an economy sustain before the foundation of essential workers are decimated and unreplaceable for a generation? These are the formulae and questions that governments are discussing, responsibly or otherwise. Either way, it is our lives, plus or minus several thousands.
As we trawl the internet seeking hope and answers, chasing the “flattening curve” mirage we need to remember, even the most beautiful of roses has thorns. It is our duty both as individuals and a society to face the truth, assess the facts and assess the price tag of not only our own lives, but that of our entire global society in a pandemic world.
Originally Published: April 2020
