4 ms·

From what I gathered from actual epidemiologists, the main issue isn't who takes the grandest of stands on this the day of reckoning, but rather, who takes what

by toxik 7y ago

From what I gathered from actual epidemiologists, the main issue isn't who takes the grandest of stands on this the day of reckoning, but rather, who takes what LONG-TERM action? Can you really shut down your economy, realistically, for more than a few weeks? The virus is sure to survive whatever countermeasures you put in its path. Flattening the curve is the idea, so that health services can deal with the critically ill. That means EVERYONE HAS TO LIMIT THEIR CONTACT, as much as possible. If you thought capitalist society was good at distributing goods, just look at what happened to hand sanitizer. Everybody needs it now, yet it has been bought up by the few that got to it.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
As far as I understand, the UK's strategy is essentially steepening the curve into one huge but thin peak, in order to minimize the time countermeasures have to be in place - which is the exact opposite of what "flattening the curve" is about.
- rcxdude 7y ago
  That doesn't seem like what they were proposing. From what I saw the idea was to flatten the curve at the point it is steepest, instead of trying to flatten it while it's still pretty flat, which just increases the time you need to keep countermeasures in place (because delaying only helps a little: it's very unlikely you can delay until a vaccine is developed, the main benefit of a few months delay is the NHS has less of its regular winter workload to deal with, which is higher than in summer).
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Ouch. Good luck trying to get the timing right. The earlier you start with countermeasures, the longer you can try them and see how they affect the spread rate. If you wait to impose them at the last minute, you will have to choose erring on too expensive measures or on letting your people die.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  The one thing that I don't see mentioned is: are they actually protecting their vulnerable population while they do this, or are they just gambling at the risk of a 20% lethality rate? Also, even if they do protect the vulnerable population, that only means they can stand a ~10x larger transmission rate. I don't think anybody knows how large it gets without some kind of action, but yeah, that would in theory make it possible to have milder actions. That said, if they are indeed protect their population, I don't see how their plan differs from the rest of the world, that is trying to protect their vulnerable population too.
- swhitf 7y ago
  If you watch the press conference from a few days ago they say that their aim is the complete opposite.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    The most charitable interpretation I can give it is that they're attempting the epidemiological equivalent of a suicide burn from rocketry. A suicide burn is when you're trying to land on a body (say, the Moon) by letting your ship fall freely, thus accelerating with gravity, for as long as possible, and then at the last second, you fire up your engines at 100% output and decelerate until hitting the ground. When timed right, you'll end up touching the ground exactly as your vertical velocity = 0. It's the most fuel-efficient way of landing, but if you miscalculate that time just a little bit, you'll end up smeared all across the surface. Suicide burn works in rocketry because you can calculate all the forces to extreme accuracy and precision. Nobody would even think of attempting that if the error bars on your altitude or velocity measurements were +/- 1000%, or if your engine output was unstable. Trying to pull the epidemiological equivalent - timing countermeasures to keep NHS at exactly 100% utilization - seems like an impossible task that's bound to end with a disaster.
abtinf 7y ago
We don’t have capitalism, we have a mixed economy. It is often illegal to raise prices, which would limit hoarding behavior.
megous 7y ago
> If you thought capitalist society was good at distributing goods, just look at what happened to hand sanitizer. Everybody needs it now, yet it has been bought up by the few that got to it. Our country is trying the other approach. Ban the sale of protective gear, and distribute it centrally. It's not working great either. GPs don't have any protective gear anymore and can't buy it on the market, as they did up to now, and talk of shutting down their practices soon, because most GPs are run by old people, and they're literally putting their lives in danger by practicing. They're only getting promises since January. They are now trying to get protective gear on black market to at least have any. They're begging the government to lift the ban so that people who're trying to get them protective gear from abroad are not doing so illegally/in great legal uncertainty. Of course no other profession exposed to masses of people daily like cashiers, have any chance either to have protective gear, under the current system.

by toxik 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

As far as I understand, the UK's strategy is essentially steepening the curve into one huge but thin peak, in order to minimize the time countermeasures have to be in place - which is the exact opposite of what "flattening the curve" is about.

rcxdude 7y ago
That doesn't seem like what they were proposing. From what I saw the idea was to flatten the curve at the point it is steepest, instead of trying to flatten it while it's still pretty flat, which just increases the time you need to keep countermeasures in place (because delaying only helps a little: it's very unlikely you can delay until a vaccine is developed, the main benefit of a few months delay is the NHS has less of its regular winter workload to deal with, which is higher than in summer).
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Ouch. Good luck trying to get the timing right. The earlier you start with countermeasures, the longer you can try them and see how they affect the spread rate. If you wait to impose them at the last minute, you will have to choose erring on too expensive measures or on letting your people die.
marcosdumay 7y ago
The one thing that I don't see mentioned is: are they actually protecting their vulnerable population while they do this, or are they just gambling at the risk of a 20% lethality rate? Also, even if they do protect the vulnerable population, that only means they can stand a ~10x larger transmission rate. I don't think anybody knows how large it gets without some kind of action, but yeah, that would in theory make it possible to have milder actions. That said, if they are indeed protect their population, I don't see how their plan differs from the rest of the world, that is trying to protect their vulnerable population too.
swhitf 7y ago
If you watch the press conference from a few days ago they say that their aim is the complete opposite.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  The most charitable interpretation I can give it is that they're attempting the epidemiological equivalent of a suicide burn from rocketry. A suicide burn is when you're trying to land on a body (say, the Moon) by letting your ship fall freely, thus accelerating with gravity, for as long as possible, and then at the last second, you fire up your engines at 100% output and decelerate until hitting the ground. When timed right, you'll end up touching the ground exactly as your vertical velocity = 0. It's the most fuel-efficient way of landing, but if you miscalculate that time just a little bit, you'll end up smeared all across the surface. Suicide burn works in rocketry because you can calculate all the forces to extreme accuracy and precision. Nobody would even think of attempting that if the error bars on your altitude or velocity measurements were +/- 1000%, or if your engine output was unstable. Trying to pull the epidemiological equivalent - timing countermeasures to keep NHS at exactly 100% utilization - seems like an impossible task that's bound to end with a disaster.

abtinf 7y ago

We don’t have capitalism, we have a mixed economy. It is often illegal to raise prices, which would limit hoarding behavior.

megous 7y ago

> If you thought capitalist society was good at distributing goods, just look at what happened to hand sanitizer. Everybody needs it now, yet it has been bought up by the few that got to it. Our country is trying the other approach. Ban the sale of protective gear, and distribute it centrally. It's not working great either. GPs don't have any protective gear anymore and can't buy it on the market, as they did up to now, and talk of shutting down their practices soon, because most GPs are run by old people, and they're literally putting their lives in danger by practicing. They're only getting promises since January. They are now trying to get protective gear on black market to at least have any. They're begging the government to lift the ban so that people who're trying to get them protective gear from abroad are not doing so illegally/in great legal uncertainty. Of course no other profession exposed to masses of people daily like cashiers, have any chance either to have protective gear, under the current system.