explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2409: Steepen the Curve

2021-01-10T23:58:42Z

Poisedleft:

My first transcript. Please improve on it so I can see how dumb I am at it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Nice first try. I only added a bit more detail to the explanation of the drawing. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Was the curve to be flattened always deaths? I thought it was covid cases in general, but I never really thought about it in depth. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 04:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, given the tight ratio (in the early days, anything done at the treatment end that further decreased the deaths per cases was a ''bonus'' to all other efforts concentrating on keeping treatable cases down in the first place, but conversely added to any overloading of the respective healthcare system with a degree of extended aftercare, etc) I think it was effectively equivalent. But I never really considered it in so much depth (or width, or deadth) at the time either. It's clear this is an (unspecific) snapshot of the initial surge. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 05:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:Death count is just convenient to measure (as opposed to case count or recovery without relapse count). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:I remember the discussion in March and April 2020 to "flatten the curve" was primarily to flatten the rate of contagion (and by extension the rate illness) in order to preserve medical resources. There was never any notion that we could '''stop''' people from dying, only that by flattening the curve we could postpone the consequences of the disease, including postponing the deaths. We also have gained knowledge about what treatments are most effective, and that helps a lot. Because of Operation Warpspeed and scientific advances we now have vaccines in an unprecedented short period of time, so that if we can continue to keep the contagion rate low enough we will eventually have enough people vaccinated that the number of disease cases (and deaths) will drop off dramatically. Hang in there a little longer and we will make it. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::I always heard about flattening the curve in context of number of cases requiring hospitalization. And the idea was specifically to keep the curve UNDER the line which represented capacity of hospitals to handle those cases. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

::: That sounds most correct to me: the effort was to flatten the curve of ''infections'' to prevent hospital (specifically) and other medical (generally) capacity from being overwhelmed. We'd do this by reducing the rate of infections through sanitary and safety measures. There was a lot of talk of trying to get the basic reproduction number R0 as close to 1 as possible to limit that exponential growth curve we're all so familiar with now. Transmissibility of the disease is not the same as mortality, though of course they are correlated. Preventing deaths was intended as a happy bonus effect of preventing the medical system from collapsing. I think it's worth rewording the explanation, even though the comic does use a chart of deaths rather than infections - they look very similar under a functioning medical system. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.92|172.69.42.92]] 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

: Explainxkcd is one of my favorite things in the world.. this is my first comment. I'm hesitant to make a major edit without discussion, but I think the statement about 2nd and 3rd waves could be much, much stronger to the point of this being a dangerous message to be sending right now. About three days ago Science published a piece [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/viral-mutations-may-cause-another-very-very-bad-covid-19-wave-scientists-warn "Viral mutations may cause another ‘very, very bad’ COVID-19 wave, scientists warn] , read the link but contains take your pick of alarming quotes, with a conclusion of "It’s dispiriting to feel like the world is back where it was in early 2020, says epidemiologist William Hanage of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “But we have to stop this virus. … Fatalism is not a nonpharmaceutical intervention.” I think this comic works against the conclusions of what seems to be a consensus of experts and that that is worth saying.. many people read xkcd, and the curve omits a reasonably likely scenario.. that we begin to see what the death rate looks like when a fresh shock to transmission dynamics rate hits multiple maxed out regions that are already beyond their maximum hospital capacity. But I'm a bit unsure of the etiquette, if one exists, for saying that a comic works against the public interest. Seems like a pretty strong stance, right? The analysis of this strain is moving very quickly.. that Science paper is from three days ago, likely before the comic was published. Request help in non jerky way to express this (if at all) in the explanation. [[User:Poisedleft|Poisedleft]] ([[User talk:Poisedleft|talk]]) 08:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2409: Steepen the Curve

2021-01-10T08:55:40Z

Poisedleft:

My first transcript. Please improve on it so I can see how dumb I am at it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Nice first try. I only added a bit more detail to the explanation of the drawing. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Was the curve to be flattened always deaths? I thought it was covid cases in general, but I never really thought about it in depth. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 04:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, given the tight ratio (in the early days, anything done at the treatment end that further decreased the deaths per cases was a ''bonus'' to all other efforts concentrating on keeping treatable cases down in the first place, but conversely added to any overloading of the respective healthcare system with a degree of extended aftercare, etc) I think it was effectively equivalent. But I never really considered it in so much depth (or width, or deadth) at the time either. It's clear this is an (unspecific) snapshot of the initial surge. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 05:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:Death count is just convenient to measure (as opposed to case count or recovery without relapse count). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:I remember the discussion in March and April 2020 to "flatten the curve" was primarily to flatten the rate of contagion (and by extension the rate illness) in order to preserve medical resources. There was never any notion that we could '''stop''' people from dying, only that by flattening the curve we could postpone the consequences of the disease, including postponing the deaths. We also have gained knowledge about what treatments are most effective, and that helps a lot. Because of Operation Warpspeed and scientific advances we now have vaccines in an unprecedented short period of time, so that if we can continue to keep the contagion rate low enough we will eventually have enough people vaccinated that the number of disease cases (and deaths) will drop off dramatically. Hang in there a little longer and we will make it. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::I always heard about flattening the curve in context of number of cases requiring hospitalization. And the idea was specifically to keep the curve UNDER the line which represented capacity of hospitals to handle those cases. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

::: That sounds most correct to me: the effort was to flatten the curve of ''infections'' to prevent hospital (specifically) and other medical (generally) capacity from being overwhelmed. We'd do this by reducing the rate of infections through sanitary and safety measures. There was a lot of talk of trying to get the basic reproduction number R0 as close to 1 as possible to limit that exponential growth curve we're all so familiar with now. Transmissibility of the disease is not the same as mortality, though of course they are correlated. Preventing deaths was intended as a happy bonus effect of preventing the medical system from collapsing. I think it's worth rewording the explanation, even though the comic does use a chart of deaths rather than infections - they look very similar under a functioning medical system. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.92|172.69.42.92]] 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

: Explainxkcd is one of my favorite things in the world.. this is my first comment. I'm hesitant to make a major edit without discussion, but I think the statement about 2nd and 3rd waves could be much, much stronger to the point of this being a dangerous message to be sending right now. About three days ago Science published a piece [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/viral-mutations-may-cause-another-very-very-bad-covid-19-wave-scientists-warn "Viral mutations may cause another ‘very, very bad’ COVID-19 wave, scientists warn] , read the link but contains take your pick of alarming quotes, with a conclusion of "It’s dispiriting to feel like the world is back where it was in early 2020, says epidemiologist William Hanage of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “But we have to stop this virus. … Fatalism is not a nonpharmaceutical intervention.” I think this comic works against the conclusions of what seems to be a consensus of experts and that that is worth saying.. many people read xkcd, and the curve omits a reasonably likely scenario.. that we begin to see what the death rate looks like when a fresh shock to transmission dynamics rate hits multiple maxed out regions that are already beyond their maximum hospital capacity. But I'm a bit unsure of the etiquette, if one exists, for saying that a comic works against the public interest. Seems like a pretty strong stance, right? I have an op-ed submitted to a big city newspaper making the opposite case - that the worse is in front of, not behind us and advocating some pretty draconian measures. The analysis of this strain is moving very quickly.. that Science paper is from three days ago, likely before the comic was published. Request help in non jerky way to express this (if at all) in the explanation. [[User:Poisedleft|Poisedleft]] ([[User talk:Poisedleft|talk]]) 08:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2409: Steepen the Curve

2021-01-10T08:53:49Z

Poisedleft:

My first transcript. Please improve on it so I can see how dumb I am at it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Nice first try. I only added a bit more detail to the explanation of the drawing. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Was the curve to be flattened always deaths? I thought it was covid cases in general, but I never really thought about it in depth. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 04:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, given the tight ratio (in the early days, anything done at the treatment end that further decreased the deaths per cases was a ''bonus'' to all other efforts concentrating on keeping treatable cases down in the first place, but conversely added to any overloading of the respective healthcare system with a degree of extended aftercare, etc) I think it was effectively equivalent. But I never really considered it in so much depth (or width, or deadth) at the time either. It's clear this is an (unspecific) snapshot of the initial surge. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 05:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:Death count is just convenient to measure (as opposed to case count or recovery without relapse count). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:I remember the discussion in March and April 2020 to "flatten the curve" was primarily to flatten the rate of contagion (and by extension the rate illness) in order to preserve medical resources. There was never any notion that we could '''stop''' people from dying, only that by flattening the curve we could postpone the consequences of the disease, including postponing the deaths. We also have gained knowledge about what treatments are most effective, and that helps a lot. Because of Operation Warpspeed and scientific advances we now have vaccines in an unprecedented short period of time, so that if we can continue to keep the contagion rate low enough we will eventually have enough people vaccinated that the number of disease cases (and deaths) will drop off dramatically. Hang in there a little longer and we will make it. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::I always heard about flattening the curve in context of number of cases requiring hospitalization. And the idea was specifically to keep the curve UNDER the line which represented capacity of hospitals to handle those cases. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

::: That sounds most correct to me: the effort was to flatten the curve of ''infections'' to prevent hospital (specifically) and other medical (generally) capacity from being overwhelmed. We'd do this by reducing the rate of infections through sanitary and safety measures. There was a lot of talk of trying to get the basic reproduction number R0 as close to 1 as possible to limit that exponential growth curve we're all so familiar with now. Transmissibility of the disease is not the same as mortality, though of course they are correlated. Preventing deaths was intended as a happy bonus effect of preventing the medical system from collapsing. I think it's worth rewording the explanation, even though the comic does use a chart of deaths rather than infections - they look very similar under a functioning medical system. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.92|172.69.42.92]] 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

: Explainxkcd is one of my favorite things in the world.. this is my first comment. I'm hesitant to make a major edit without discussion, but I think the statement about 2nd and 3rd waves could be much, much stronger to the point of this being a dangerous message to be sending right now. About three days ago Science published a piece [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/viral-mutations-may-cause-another-very-very-bad-covid-19-wave-scientists-warn "Viral mutations may cause another ‘very, very bad’ COVID-19 wave, scientists warn] , read the link but contains take your pick of alarming quotes, with a conclusion of "It’s dispiriting to feel like the world is back where it was in early 2020, says epidemiologist William Hanage of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “But we have to stop this virus. … Fatalism is not a nonpharmaceutical intervention.” I think this comic works against the conclusions of what seems to be a consensus of experts and that that is worth saying.. many people read xkcd, and the curve omits a reasonably likely scenario.. that we begin to see what the death rate looks like when a fresh rate hits multiple maxed out regions that are already beyond their maximum hospital capacity. But I'm a bit unsure of the etiquette, if one exists, for saying that a comic works against the public interest. Seems like a pretty strong stance, right? I have an op-ed submitted to a big city newspaper making the opposite case - that the worse is in front of, not behind us and advocating some pretty draconian measures. The analysis of this strain is moving very quickly.. that Science paper is from three days ago, likely before the comic was published. Request help in non jerky way to express this (if at all) in the explanation. [[User:Poisedleft|Poisedleft]] ([[User talk:Poisedleft|talk]]) 08:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2409: Steepen the Curve

2021-01-10T08:50:38Z

Poisedleft:

My first transcript. Please improve on it so I can see how dumb I am at it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Nice first try. I only added a bit more detail to the explanation of the drawing. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Was the curve to be flattened always deaths? I thought it was covid cases in general, but I never really thought about it in depth. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 04:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, given the tight ratio (in the early days, anything done at the treatment end that further decreased the deaths per cases was a ''bonus'' to all other efforts concentrating on keeping treatable cases down in the first place, but conversely added to any overloading of the respective healthcare system with a degree of extended aftercare, etc) I think it was effectively equivalent. But I never really considered it in so much depth (or width, or deadth) at the time either. It's clear this is an (unspecific) snapshot of the initial surge. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 05:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:Death count is just convenient to measure (as opposed to case count or recovery without relapse count). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:I remember the discussion in March and April 2020 to "flatten the curve" was primarily to flatten the rate of contagion (and by extension the rate illness) in order to preserve medical resources. There was never any notion that we could '''stop''' people from dying, only that by flattening the curve we could postpone the consequences of the disease, including postponing the deaths. We also have gained knowledge about what treatments are most effective, and that helps a lot. Because of Operation Warpspeed and scientific advances we now have vaccines in an unprecedented short period of time, so that if we can continue to keep the contagion rate low enough we will eventually have enough people vaccinated that the number of disease cases (and deaths) will drop off dramatically. Hang in there a little longer and we will make it. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::I always heard about flattening the curve in context of number of cases requiring hospitalization. And the idea was specifically to keep the curve UNDER the line which represented capacity of hospitals to handle those cases. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

::: That sounds most correct to me: the effort was to flatten the curve of ''infections'' to prevent hospital (specifically) and other medical (generally) capacity from being overwhelmed. We'd do this by reducing the rate of infections through sanitary and safety measures. There was a lot of talk of trying to get the basic reproduction number R0 as close to 1 as possible to limit that exponential growth curve we're all so familiar with now. Transmissibility of the disease is not the same as mortality, though of course they are correlated. Preventing deaths was intended as a happy bonus effect of preventing the medical system from collapsing. I think it's worth rewording the explanation, even though the comic does use a chart of deaths rather than infections - they look very similar under a functioning medical system. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.92|172.69.42.92]] 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

: Explainxkcd is one of my favorite things in the world.. this is my first comment. I'm hesitant to make a major edit without discussion, but I think the statement about 2nd and 3rd waves could be much, much stronger to the point of this being a dangerous message to be sending right now. About three days ago Science published a piece [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/viral-mutations-may-cause-another-very-very-bad-covid-19-wave-scientists-warn "Viral mutations may cause another ‘very, very bad’ COVID-19 wave, scientists warn] , read the link but contains take your pick of alarming quotes, with a conclusion of "It’s dispiriting to feel like the world is back where it was in early 2020, says epidemiologist William Hanage of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “But we have to stop this virus. … Fatalism is not a nonpharmaceutical intervention.” I think this comic works against the conclusions of what seems to be a consensus of experts and that that is worth saying.. many people read xkcd. But I'm a bit unsure of the etiquette, if one exists, for saying that a comic works against the public interest. Seems like a pretty strong stance, right? I have an op-ed submitted to a big city newspaper making the opposite case - that the worse is in front of, not behind us and advocating some pretty draconian measures. The analysis of this strain is moving very quickly.. that Science paper is from three days ago, likely before the comic was published. Request help in non jerky way to express this (if at all) in the explanation. [[User:Poisedleft|Poisedleft]] ([[User talk:Poisedleft|talk]]) 08:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2409: Steepen the Curve

2021-01-10T08:49:01Z

Poisedleft:

My first transcript. Please improve on it so I can see how dumb I am at it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Nice first try. I only added a bit more detail to the explanation of the drawing. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Was the curve to be flattened always deaths? I thought it was covid cases in general, but I never really thought about it in depth. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 04:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, given the tight ratio (in the early days, anything done at the treatment end that further decreased the deaths per cases was a ''bonus'' to all other efforts concentrating on keeping treatable cases down in the first place, but conversely added to any overloading of the respective healthcare system with a degree of extended aftercare, etc) I think it was effectively equivalent. But I never really considered it in so much depth (or width, or deadth) at the time either. It's clear this is an (unspecific) snapshot of the initial surge. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 05:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:Death count is just convenient to measure (as opposed to case count or recovery without relapse count). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:I remember the discussion in March and April 2020 to "flatten the curve" was primarily to flatten the rate of contagion (and by extension the rate illness) in order to preserve medical resources. There was never any notion that we could '''stop''' people from dying, only that by flattening the curve we could postpone the consequences of the disease, including postponing the deaths. We also have gained knowledge about what treatments are most effective, and that helps a lot. Because of Operation Warpspeed and scientific advances we now have vaccines in an unprecedented short period of time, so that if we can continue to keep the contagion rate low enough we will eventually have enough people vaccinated that the number of disease cases (and deaths) will drop off dramatically. Hang in there a little longer and we will make it. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::I always heard about flattening the curve in context of number of cases requiring hospitalization. And the idea was specifically to keep the curve UNDER the line which represented capacity of hospitals to handle those cases. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

::: That sounds most correct to me: the effort was to flatten the curve of ''infections'' to prevent hospital (specifically) and other medical (generally) capacity from being overwhelmed. We'd do this by reducing the rate of infections through sanitary and safety measures. There was a lot of talk of trying to get the basic reproduction number R0 as close to 1 as possible to limit that exponential growth curve we're all so familiar with now. Transmissibility of the disease is not the same as mortality, though of course they are correlated. Preventing deaths was intended as a happy bonus effect of preventing the medical system from collapsing. I think it's worth rewording the explanation, even though the comic does use a chart of deaths rather than infections - they look very similar under a functioning medical system. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.92|172.69.42.92]] 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

: Explainxkcd is one of my favorite things in the world.. this is my first comment. I'm hesitant to make a major edit without discussion, but I think the statement about 2nd and 3rd waves could be much, much stronger to the point of being a dangerous message to be sending right now. About three days ago Science published a piece [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/viral-mutations-may-cause-another-very-very-bad-covid-19-wave-scientists-warn "Viral mutations may cause another ‘very, very bad’ COVID-19 wave, scientists warn] , read the link but contains take your pick of alarming quotes, with a conclusion of "It’s dispiriting to feel like the world is back where it was in early 2020, says epidemiologist William Hanage of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “But we have to stop this virus. … Fatalism is not a nonpharmaceutical intervention.” I think this comic works against the conclusions of what seems to be a consensus of experts and that that is worth saying.. many people read xkcd. But I'm a bit unsure of the etiquette, if one exists, for saying that a comic works against the public interest. Seems like a pretty strong stance, right? I have an op-ed submitted to a big city newspaper making the opposite case - that the worse is in front of, not behind us and advocating some pretty draconian measures. The analysis of this strain is moving very quickly.. that Science paper is from three days ago, likely before the comic was published. Request help in non jerky way to express this (if at all) in the explanation. [[User:Poisedleft|Poisedleft]] ([[User talk:Poisedleft|talk]]) 08:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2409: Steepen the Curve

2021-01-10T08:42:47Z

Poisedleft: This comic is incorrect at best and against the public interest at worse.. but I say that with love, keep up the good work everyone.

My first transcript. Please improve on it so I can see how dumb I am at it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Nice first try. I only added a bit more detail to the explanation of the drawing. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Was the curve to be flattened always deaths? I thought it was covid cases in general, but I never really thought about it in depth. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 04:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, given the tight ratio (in the early days, anything done at the treatment end that further decreased the deaths per cases was a ''bonus'' to all other efforts concentrating on keeping treatable cases down in the first place, but conversely added to any overloading of the respective healthcare system with a degree of extended aftercare, etc) I think it was effectively equivalent. But I never really considered it in so much depth (or width, or deadth) at the time either. It's clear this is an (unspecific) snapshot of the initial surge. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 05:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:Death count is just convenient to measure (as opposed to case count or recovery without relapse count). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:I remember the discussion in March and April 2020 to "flatten the curve" was primarily to flatten the rate of contagion (and by extension the rate illness) in order to preserve medical resources. There was never any notion that we could '''stop''' people from dying, only that by flattening the curve we could postpone the consequences of the disease, including postponing the deaths. We also have gained knowledge about what treatments are most effective, and that helps a lot. Because of Operation Warpspeed and scientific advances we now have vaccines in an unprecedented short period of time, so that if we can continue to keep the contagion rate low enough we will eventually have enough people vaccinated that the number of disease cases (and deaths) will drop off dramatically. Hang in there a little longer and we will make it. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::I always heard about flattening the curve in context of number of cases requiring hospitalization. And the idea was specifically to keep the curve UNDER the line which represented capacity of hospitals to handle those cases. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

::: That sounds most correct to me: the effort was to flatten the curve of ''infections'' to prevent hospital (specifically) and other medical (generally) capacity from being overwhelmed. We'd do this by reducing the rate of infections through sanitary and safety measures. There was a lot of talk of trying to get the basic reproduction number R0 as close to 1 as possible to limit that exponential growth curve we're all so familiar with now. Transmissibility of the disease is not the same as mortality, though of course they are correlated. Preventing deaths was intended as a happy bonus effect of preventing the medical system from collapsing. I think it's worth rewording the explanation, even though the comic does use a chart of deaths rather than infections - they look very similar under a functioning medical system. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.92|172.69.42.92]] 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

: Explainxkcd is one of my favorite things in the world.. this is my first comment. I'm hesitant to make a major edit without discussion, but I think the statement about 2nd and 3rd waves could be much, much stronger to the point of being a dangerous message to be sending right now. Informations about the consequences of Science published a piece "viral mutations may cause another ‘very, very bad’ COVID-19 wave, scientists warn [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/viral-mutations-may-cause-another-very-very-bad-covid-19-wave-scientists-warn Viral mutations may cause another ‘very, very bad’ COVID-19 wave, scientists warn] , read the link but contains take your pick of alarming quotes, with a conclusion of "It’s dispiriting to feel like the world is back where it was in early 2020, says epidemiologist William Hanage of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “But we have to stop this virus. … Fatalism is not a nonpharmaceutical intervention.” I think this comic works against the conclusions of what seems to be a consensus of experts and that that is worth saying.. many people read xkcd. But I'm a bit unsure of the etiquette, if one exists, for saying that a comic works against the public interest. Seems like a pretty strong stance, right? I have an op-ed submitted to a big city newspaper making the opposite case - that the worse is in front of, not behind us and advocating some pretty draconian measures. The analysis of this strain is moving very quickly.. that Science paper is from three days ago, likely before the comic was published. Request help in non jerky way to express this (if at all) in the explanation. [[User:Poisedleft|Poisedleft]] ([[User talk:Poisedleft|talk]]) 08:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

722: Computer Problems

2014-10-12T19:00:08Z

Poisedleft: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 722
| date = April 2, 2010
| title = Computer Problems
| image = Computer_problems.png
| titletext = This is how I explain computer problems to my cat. My cat usually seems happier than me.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] explains to [[Megan]] that he is having computer problems. Normally, he is able to manipulate a "pattern" on his "metal rectangle full of little lights" (a reasonable, if oversimplified description of generated images displayed on a monitor). Today, however, the "pattern" is "all wrong". Megan suggests that he might be able to fix it by pressing more buttons, but following her advice doesn't seem to have the desired effect.

According to the title text, [[Randall]] uses a similar technique to explain his computer problems to his cat. Cats have the habit to walk over or lay on keyboards so they press a lot of buttons. This is however not to fix the "pattern" which they usually don't care about but either to get the same attention the keyboard receives from the cat's owner. Often cats prefer to lay on a warm place — and a keyboard belonging to a notebook is designed to dispense some heat.

Randall likes to [[1133: Up Goer Five|make an effort]] to explain things for simple minds.

Speculatively, Randall may be commenting on the abstract nature of events that effect Cueball's happiness or well being. While the work Cueball does on the computer seems very important to him, the deconstructed version as discussed by Megan and Cueball make his resulting distress seem out of proportion. This interpretation is further supported by the title text in which Randall's cat, unaware of more abstract representations of activity on the computer, enjoys greater happiness overall.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are looking at his computer, on the desk.]
:Cueball: You know this metal rectangle full of little lights?
:Megan: Yeah.

:Cueball: I spend most of my life pressing buttons to make the pattern of lights change however I want.
:Megan: Sounds good.

:Cueball: But today, the pattern of lights is ''all wrong''!
:Megan: Oh god! Try pressing more buttons!
:Cueball: ''IT'S NOT HELPING!''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Computers]]