At one point, the “flatten the curve” theory was ubiquitous. The basic concept was that the blockages could delay the spread of the coronavirus, and this was of great importance since, as we were told at the time, “We cannot stop this virus.” The narrative said that if the virus spread uncontrollably, hospitals would be overwhelmed, and both people with coronaviruses and those who need medical attention for other ailments would die from lack of access to care.
It all made sense. To some extent, it still does. Most of the charts showing the flattening of the curve, as in The New York Times, showed two curves. Typically, the former was associated with the absence of blocks that peaked above the capacity of the health care system, while the second “flattened” curve was associated with blocks with their peak near capacity. . The areas under each curve, representing the total number of Covid-19 infections, were approximately the same.
The flattening of the curve made two assumptions. First, he assumed that a certain number of deaths and infections were unavoidable and that the best we could do was delay the process. No one promoting flattening the curve spoke of stopping the disease; There were no charts to show that if we blocked, the infections would go straight to zero.
Secondly, the flattening of the curve was always shown with the same level of flattening: enough not to overwhelm the health system. This was a tacit admission that flattening the curve would be painful and that flattening the curve beyond the level necessary to avoid overwhelming the health system would not be beneficial.
Flattening the curve was the bait. Then came the switch.
It didn’t take long for the story of “flattening the curve” to be abandoned. For example, California had more than 26,000 hospital beds available for coronavirus patients, but they closed when they had around 200 coronavirus hospitalizations on March 20. That was less than 1 percent of their hospital coronavirus capacity. It quickly became apparent that the California hospital system was not threatened, yet the blockades remained in place and “crush the curve” was abandoned in favor of “suppress at all costs.”
To this day, there are states that were blocked during the initial wave of panic and remain blocked despite the lack of a real threat to the hospital’s capacity. At its peak, Colorado had 888 coronavirus patients in hospitals. As of June 24, that number is 134 and has decreased almost continuously since April 23, however, the governor is slowly removing the restrictions and schools are contemplating remote learning for the fall.
The narrative of flattening the curve was almost silently replaced by “life-saving locks.” Many early stops resulted in excessive deletion, which meant any the subsequent opening would be accompanied by an increase in cases and hospitalizations.
However, since the notion of flattening the curve that infections were unavoidable has been abandoned, most media outlets now consider any increase in cases to be apocalyptic. This can be seen in Florida, where cases are on the rise and ABC, CNN and CBS frequently report record numbers of cases. This ignores the fact that Florida has more hospital beds available now for potential patients than before the pandemic began.
This curious phenomenon is not limited to the United States, but has developed worldwide. New Zealand started talking about flattening the curve, but quickly activated aggressive locks and managed to stop the virus. Now, however, they are in a situation where they can open up internally, but due to their lack of immunity, the entire country must remain isolated from the rest of the world.
The greatest tragedy associated with abandoning the flattening of the curve to suppress at all costs is the large number of coronavirus-free deaths that are a direct result of the blockages. The New York Times found that nearly a third of excess deaths in New York and New Jersey were not from coronaviruses. It’s almost impossible to make a reasonable estimate right now, but my calculations put this number at around 30,000.
Paving the curve was solid logic when it was originally introduced, and remains so today. That is why so many people across the political spectrum originally accepted the idea. However, the shift from flattening the curve to stopping the virus at all costs has been a disaster. More than 40 million people have lost their jobs. The related heartache and associated lack of social opportunities created a dry forest that exploded into flames when George Floyd was killed. Also, deaths from despair and child abuse are likely on the rise as a result.
We must reject the largest and most destructive bait and switch ever made and return to the principles of flattening the curve. We must accept that nature can be brutal and that more infections will occur. However, we must move on. We must strive to reopen our society as much as possible and only implement mitigation efforts to the extent necessary to avoid a clearly imminent threat from overwhelming hospitals.
Karl Dierenbach is an engineer-turned-lawyer who lives outside of Denver, Colorado. He is active in local politics and is the author of articles on state policy in Colorado and on national political issues.
