2 ms·

Oh, I don't think near eradication is an acceptable goal either. We need to actually eradicate it. I specified near eradication because we have proof by example

Oh, I don't think near eradication is an acceptable goal either. We need to actually eradicate it. I specified near eradication because we have proof by example that it is possible. As yet, nobody has actually eradicated the virus in their borders, so I don't want to presume it is possible. However, it needs to be the goal. > To address "If we adopt a stance that makes R0 < 1, there is no other stochastically possible outcome.": This is untrue if you're time-bounding this to "before we make a generally-available vaccine". Depends on what we get the value to. If we get it to 0.5 or below, as it appears China has done, then probably before we get the vaccine ready. But sure if it's at 0.95 then we will have to wait for the vaccine.

scrollaway 7y ago
I think everyone would agree with you. The question is how long that realistically takes, in a minimally-damaging way. I don't think there's a world in which there's a better option than "waiting for the vaccine with various forms of mitigation". Boy would I love to be proven wrong.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  At this point it's hard to imagine doing much more damage to the economy than what is already being done, at least not in any way that would be useful for stopping the spread of the virus. We should take any further actions that seem likely to curtail the spread (massive testing, massively expanded surveillance and data publishing about the virus, centralized quarantines if needed to engender compliance). And then I guess we can see. If China has not managed to stamp it out in the next month or so, that will be a pretty bad sign for our ability to do. > Boy would I love to be proven wrong. I would love you to be proven wrong. And I'd accept being proven wrong, with deep regret. But it's definitely possible to get within striking distance. I hope we can see China jump the gap from few to no new cases soon. That would give me hope for the rest of us.

scrollaway 7y ago

I think everyone would agree with you. The question is how long that realistically takes, in a minimally-damaging way. I don't think there's a world in which there's a better option than "waiting for the vaccine with various forms of mitigation". Boy would I love to be proven wrong.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
At this point it's hard to imagine doing much more damage to the economy than what is already being done, at least not in any way that would be useful for stopping the spread of the virus. We should take any further actions that seem likely to curtail the spread (massive testing, massively expanded surveillance and data publishing about the virus, centralized quarantines if needed to engender compliance). And then I guess we can see. If China has not managed to stamp it out in the next month or so, that will be a pretty bad sign for our ability to do. > Boy would I love to be proven wrong. I would love you to be proven wrong. And I'd accept being proven wrong, with deep regret. But it's definitely possible to get within striking distance. I hope we can see China jump the gap from few to no new cases soon. That would give me hope for the rest of us.