8 ms·

Yes, that's what I think. The actions two weeks ago were: Shut down everything except essential services, isolate everyone as much as possible, throw as many r

Yes, that's what I think. The actions two weeks ago were: Shut down everything except essential services, isolate everyone as much as possible, throw as many resources as possible at your health service. Even then, they will be overwhelmed at some point. The same actions apply today. What's changed?

Lewton 7y ago
Which country are you even talking about? If you think the US is literally doing everything they can, have you looked at what the lockdown in Italy looks like? If you have random sampling from two weeks ago and today, you might find out that you won't have to go to the same extremes as italy, or you might find out that military should have been on the streets a week ago and putting them on the streets now is a good idea
- phaemon 7y ago
  I'm talking generally about all developed countries (I know what in many developing countries a lockdown will simply be impossible). I certainly don't think the US has done everything it can. Quite the contrary - it's no surprise to me at all that it is now top of the leaderboard in recorded cases. The US had to go to at least the extremes of Italy, and it didn't, so you'll end up with many more deaths than you would otherwise have had. The US could just have looked at what was actually happening in Europe to establish what it needed to do. Arguing over the numbers is exactly what caused the inaction in the first place.
  - Lewton 7y ago
    Ok, then let's talk Europe. Denmark has been in a early and disciplined lockdown for 3 weeks. The amount of deaths per day seem to have stabilized. The Hospitals are not overrun When should Denmark end the lockdown? (And if Denmark had a random sampling from two weeks ago, and one from today, would they be better positioned to know when to end the lockdown or not?)
    - phaemon 7y ago
      No, that's completely wrong. Denmark only had its first death 2 weeks ago (a single death) and one the following day. Over the last 3 days, it's had 31 deaths. The number of active cases is still shooting up. It's very early days for Denmark and things will get a lot worse before it gets better. I've no idea why you think anything has stabilised there. Look at the graphs: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/denmark/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/denmark/ Is it perhaps the change in daily new cases that's thrown you? Many countries have that drop and increase again as they change the way they're testing.
      - Lewton 7y ago
        ... Sigh. Ok then the cases in Denmark hasn't stabilized. How in the world does that change my point? (but number of daily deaths have been linear for a week now, I don't know why you'd think that's not stable, but you're just completely proving my point by disagreeing with how stable the situation is in Denmark, how do you ACTUALLY know that it's not?)
        phaemon 7y ago
        Number of daily deaths for the last 3 days, as I mentioned before, was 31. The 3 days before that, 18. The 3 days before that 15. That is clearly increasing. I know it's not from the statistics. Note I don't need to know the exact percentage of asymptomatic cases for this, or to know the correct course of action. Which was my point to start with. Perhaps you lost track of it?
        vonmoltke 7y ago
        So, what is it going to be in 3 days? 6 days? 9 days? Your view on the situation is purely reactionary. Having population-level data allows public health officials to proactively take steps to mitigate the current crisis and anticipate how much surge capacity they will actually need. Right now they can't do that, because even testing of symptomatic people is bottlenecked. Being reactionary to a crisis like this is a very bad idea and will lead to it being worse than it needs to be.

Lewton 7y ago

Which country are you even talking about? If you think the US is literally doing everything they can, have you looked at what the lockdown in Italy looks like? If you have random sampling from two weeks ago and today, you might find out that you won't have to go to the same extremes as italy, or you might find out that military should have been on the streets a week ago and putting them on the streets now is a good idea

phaemon 7y ago
I'm talking generally about all developed countries (I know what in many developing countries a lockdown will simply be impossible). I certainly don't think the US has done everything it can. Quite the contrary - it's no surprise to me at all that it is now top of the leaderboard in recorded cases. The US had to go to at least the extremes of Italy, and it didn't, so you'll end up with many more deaths than you would otherwise have had. The US could just have looked at what was actually happening in Europe to establish what it needed to do. Arguing over the numbers is exactly what caused the inaction in the first place.
- Lewton 7y ago
  Ok, then let's talk Europe. Denmark has been in a early and disciplined lockdown for 3 weeks. The amount of deaths per day seem to have stabilized. The Hospitals are not overrun When should Denmark end the lockdown? (And if Denmark had a random sampling from two weeks ago, and one from today, would they be better positioned to know when to end the lockdown or not?)
  - phaemon 7y ago
    No, that's completely wrong. Denmark only had its first death 2 weeks ago (a single death) and one the following day. Over the last 3 days, it's had 31 deaths. The number of active cases is still shooting up. It's very early days for Denmark and things will get a lot worse before it gets better. I've no idea why you think anything has stabilised there. Look at the graphs: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/denmark/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/denmark/ Is it perhaps the change in daily new cases that's thrown you? Many countries have that drop and increase again as they change the way they're testing.
    - Lewton 7y ago
      ... Sigh. Ok then the cases in Denmark hasn't stabilized. How in the world does that change my point? (but number of daily deaths have been linear for a week now, I don't know why you'd think that's not stable, but you're just completely proving my point by disagreeing with how stable the situation is in Denmark, how do you ACTUALLY know that it's not?)
      - phaemon 7y ago
        Number of daily deaths for the last 3 days, as I mentioned before, was 31. The 3 days before that, 18. The 3 days before that 15. That is clearly increasing. I know it's not from the statistics. Note I don't need to know the exact percentage of asymptomatic cases for this, or to know the correct course of action. Which was my point to start with. Perhaps you lost track of it?
        vonmoltke 7y ago
        So, what is it going to be in 3 days? 6 days? 9 days? Your view on the situation is purely reactionary. Having population-level data allows public health officials to proactively take steps to mitigate the current crisis and anticipate how much surge capacity they will actually need. Right now they can't do that, because even testing of symptomatic people is bottlenecked. Being reactionary to a crisis like this is a very bad idea and will lead to it being worse than it needs to be.