I suspect that we agree on everything major about what should be done, but disagree about what we think people will take away from this article.

People I'm talking to don't understand how serious this is, and I think we (you and I) agree that this is a disaster unfolding. People are saying "Get it now and get it over with", and that's potentially a disaster.

But some people are looking at the original graphic and saying "Oh, so that's why we should self-isolate, practise social distancing, and wash our hands."

So the graphic is doing the right thing, it's telling people to wash their hands, practise social distancing, and stay home if they can.

The article ... which I have read all of ... is, I think, mostly correct. But I also think it's dangerously phrased. It says:

> Flattening the curve is not an option for the United States, for the UK or Germany. Don’t tell your friends to flatten the curve. Let’s start containment.

I think this is incredibly irresponsible. The actions individuals should be taking are to wash their hands, practise social distance, and stay home where possible. The people I'm talking to understand this to be the meaning and intent of "Flatten the Curve." But this article is saying "Don't flatten the curve."

If you can contain it ... great! But that's up to Governments to direct and enforce, it's not what individuals do. Individuals need to wash their hands, practise social distance, and stay home where possible.

Perhaps people's understanding of FtC is not the same where you are as where I am, perhaps people are interpreting it differently. Perhaps where you are, telling people to practise "containment" actually means something to them, and is not too late.

I seriously expect we are in violent agreement about what should be done by both Governments and individuals, and I suspect we are equally in agreement about the potential for disaster. I've already seen this specific article quoted with people saying ... "OK, this says it will take a decade if we flatten the curve, so let's just get it over with."

Yes, they're taking the wrong message away from it, but it's what people are understanding the article to be saying, which is why I think it's genuinely dangerous. The article may be correct, but from what I've seen, more people might very well die because of it. Not because it's wrong, but because the way it's expressed is leading people to the wrong conclusions.

I suspect we (you and I) have a different view of what people might take away from this, and as I result, discussing it further is most likely pointless. I've clearly failed (up to now, maybe this comment has helped) to make clear why I think this article is misguided and best and dangerous at worst, not because of its content, but because of the way it says it, and the way I've already seen it being misunderstood.

Let's agree this:

* This pandemic is potentially catastrophic;

* None of us want people to die needlessly;

* Immediate and drastic action should be underway;

* The best thing individuals can do it WtH, S@H, and PSD.

Finally, I don't trust the Governments to act in the best interests of individuals, because that's not really what they're for. So I'm personally going the hand-washing, social-distancing, staying home route, and urging everyone I know to do the same.