3 ms·

The "Best endgame" you describe is exactly the goal. We lockdown now so that we can buy time to get tests and tracing systems setup. Then we can start to open u

The "Best endgame" you describe is exactly the goal. We lockdown now so that we can buy time to get tests and tracing systems setup. Then we can start to open up everything again and control hotspots with aggressive testing and individual quarantine (as opposed to the blanket quarantine we are doing now). With good testing/tracing coverage, we can stop the virus from spreading exponentially for more than a few hops. Also locking down everything DOES stop the exponential spread. That's the whole point. If you don't see other people, you aren't spreading the disease, reducing the rate of new infections. If each infected person infects less than 1 other person on average, we'll have stopped the spread. China and SK have already succeeded in this.

lutorm 7y ago
* If each infected person infects less than 1 other person on average, we'll have stopped the spread.* This isn't exactly correct. It means that, eventually, the spread would die out even if there were an infinite number of potential hosts. But it's still spreading. If that number is exactly 1, ~everyone will still end up getting infected. If it's just a bit below 1, it will behave as a decaying exponential but will still take a long time to die out.
int_19h 7y ago
My point was that a 1-month or even 3-month lockdown doesn't stop exponential growth permanently, it just pauses it. A permanent lockdown would stop it, but it's obviously not sustainable. And I wasn't trying to dispute your claim that the "best endgame" is the goal, merely clarify it - and also point out that even then, we will still see our healthcare overwhelmed, and a lot of people will still die because they will be rationed out of the system. People who wouldn't have died if we locked things down when containment was still realistic - so I consider them all preventable deaths that we have failed to prevent as a society. To be absolutely clear: a lockdown is still our best bet, and the lives it'll save are worth it.

lutorm 7y ago

* If each infected person infects less than 1 other person on average, we'll have stopped the spread.* This isn't exactly correct. It means that, eventually, the spread would die out even if there were an infinite number of potential hosts. But it's still spreading. If that number is exactly 1, ~everyone will still end up getting infected. If it's just a bit below 1, it will behave as a decaying exponential but will still take a long time to die out.

int_19h 7y ago

My point was that a 1-month or even 3-month lockdown doesn't stop exponential growth permanently, it just pauses it. A permanent lockdown would stop it, but it's obviously not sustainable. And I wasn't trying to dispute your claim that the "best endgame" is the goal, merely clarify it - and also point out that even then, we will still see our healthcare overwhelmed, and a lot of people will still die because they will be rationed out of the system. People who wouldn't have died if we locked things down when containment was still realistic - so I consider them all preventable deaths that we have failed to prevent as a society. To be absolutely clear: a lockdown is still our best bet, and the lives it'll save are worth it.