[ossiblue]

Both post responses are correct.

Any modeling is based on assumptions. Those assumptions are based on available data. The problem at this point, the data for the U.S. is weak because of the lack of testing. There are no hard numbers to know who does and who doesn't have the virus, symptomatic or not. What we do have is data from other countries which have dealt with the infection earlier.

The scenario described is based on real evidence in other areas, specifically Italy. The rapid spread and overwhelming of their medical system is real and a result that anyone can observe. The spread cannot be stopped. However, it can be slowed to a point that a sudden surge of those in need of hospitalization does not overwhelm our medical system. That is the social distancing element. The U.S. has only 2.5 beds/1000 people and those are not distributed evenly around the nation. If (assumption) the virus requires the hospitalization of a certain percentage of the population, like it has in other countries, and that percentage happens suddenly, the worst case scenario could play out.

Based on assumptions (and round numbers):

U.S. population 3.5 million (Edit: Typo. actually 350 million. Credit Tobra for correction.)
Number likely to contract virus=70-150 million (best guesses as of this date)
percent likely to need hospitalization=10-15% (best estimates from known infected countries)
number of beds needed=7 million-22.5 million
number of beds available, nationwide=924,107

This is what the medical community is concerned about and one can see why preventing a sudden surge in hospitalizations is imperative, especially since the "beds available" are not uniformly dispersed and are also used for non-coronavirus patients. This virus is known to spread exponentially which creates the possibility of such a surge. Slowing the spread is the best method to prevent the overwhelming of our medial care.