3 ms·

I don't agree with this. Right now we're locking down to get R0 well under 1.0. With its super strict lockdown, Wuhan got it down to supposedly 0.3. That mea

I don't agree with this. Right now we're locking down to get R0 well under 1.0. With its super strict lockdown, Wuhan got it down to supposedly 0.3. That means number of cases goes down by 70% or so roughly every five days. The goal is to get the case count down to in the range of dozens. The better job we do of stopping transmission, the quicker we get out of this phase. Once the case count is sufficiently low, we just need R0 to be less than 1. 0.9 is sufficient. That means that each case infects 0.9 people on average. To do that, we're going to need everyone to wear masks, stop having big gatherings, aggressive rapid testing, and electronic and human contact tracing. The low case count we're going for with the lockdown does two things. First, it stops mass death and hospital overload. Second, with fewer cases, you can actually allocate the manpower to trace all of them thoroughly.

dan_quixote 7y ago
> Once the case count is sufficiently low, we just need R0 to be less than 1. 0.9 is sufficient Consider that it takes days-to-weeks for patient-zero to show symptoms, another couple weeks for symptoms to appear in spreadees, and still more days for the government to responds with strict enforcement. This kind of feedback loop will make this kind of control impossible.
- restalis 7y ago
  The effective phase of infection only starts when the first symptoms occur. The virus is not airborne, it relies on liquid droplets to be inhaled by the next victim, thus even infected, as long as the individual does not exhibit sings of sneezing or coughing, the posed risk of infecting others is quite low.
  - taeric 7y ago
    This feels directly contradictory to every story out right now. Are you sure you have the right?
- ianburrell 7y ago
  That feedback loop is why need to have widespread testing and contact tracing. First patient may take time to show symptoms but then you test everyone they had contact with and catch positives before they show symptoms or are asymptomatic. Also important is quarantining anyone with symptoms until tests prove they are negative. South Korea and Taiwan show that this kind of control is possible.
  - notyourday 7y ago
    Police state here we come? It is pretty amazing to watch how quick we are at giving the benevolent government a dystopian level of control.
dkarl 7y ago
> Once the case count is sufficiently low, we just need R0 to be less than 1. 0.9 is sufficient. That means that each case infects 0.9 people on average. To do that, we're going to need everyone to wear masks, stop having big gatherings, aggressive rapid testing, and electronic and human contact tracing. Right -- which is why that isn't a sufficient condition for restoring normal life, where people can go to weddings, concerts, festivals, church services, sporting events, and other large gatherings. To get back to that, we need the virus to be gone, or we need herd immunity. The only way we are going to get there fast is if we fail badly and let tons of people die unnecessarily. The goal is to do it slowly so we can take care of sick people properly.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Avoiding "weddings, concerts, festivals, church services, sporting events, and other large gatherings" is a minor inconvenience, not a crisis situation. It would even make sense to avoid those as a matter of course during cold/flu season.
  - dkarl 7y ago
    That's a massive change to almost every human culture on earth. I don't think you'll find many people willing to write it off as a minor inconvenience.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      Smaller gatherings are fine, especially if e.g. limited to folks from your local neighborhood or small town. "Almost every human culture on earth" still functions basically on that scale anyway.
- cameldrv 7y ago
  Agreed that we're better off overdoing it, but we can't just stay indoors forever. I don't agree that we can get herd immunity without mass death. First, the fatality rate is still high even with medical care. Second, it would take years to process everyone that needs to get it through proper medical care. Finally, to do the flatten the curve strategy, you need to get R0 at exactly 1.0. Too high and it blows up again. But if you get it a little too low, and you keep it there for a while, the virus just dies out. If we're capable of keeping R0 at exactly 1.0 for five years, we're certainly capable of keeping it at 0.95 for two years until we have a vaccine.

dan_quixote 7y ago

> Once the case count is sufficiently low, we just need R0 to be less than 1. 0.9 is sufficient Consider that it takes days-to-weeks for patient-zero to show symptoms, another couple weeks for symptoms to appear in spreadees, and still more days for the government to responds with strict enforcement. This kind of feedback loop will make this kind of control impossible.

restalis 7y ago
The effective phase of infection only starts when the first symptoms occur. The virus is not airborne, it relies on liquid droplets to be inhaled by the next victim, thus even infected, as long as the individual does not exhibit sings of sneezing or coughing, the posed risk of infecting others is quite low.
- taeric 7y ago
  This feels directly contradictory to every story out right now. Are you sure you have the right?
ianburrell 7y ago
That feedback loop is why need to have widespread testing and contact tracing. First patient may take time to show symptoms but then you test everyone they had contact with and catch positives before they show symptoms or are asymptomatic. Also important is quarantining anyone with symptoms until tests prove they are negative. South Korea and Taiwan show that this kind of control is possible.
- notyourday 7y ago
  Police state here we come? It is pretty amazing to watch how quick we are at giving the benevolent government a dystopian level of control.

dkarl 7y ago

> Once the case count is sufficiently low, we just need R0 to be less than 1. 0.9 is sufficient. That means that each case infects 0.9 people on average. To do that, we're going to need everyone to wear masks, stop having big gatherings, aggressive rapid testing, and electronic and human contact tracing. Right -- which is why that isn't a sufficient condition for restoring normal life, where people can go to weddings, concerts, festivals, church services, sporting events, and other large gatherings. To get back to that, we need the virus to be gone, or we need herd immunity. The only way we are going to get there fast is if we fail badly and let tons of people die unnecessarily. The goal is to do it slowly so we can take care of sick people properly.

zozbot234 7y ago
Avoiding "weddings, concerts, festivals, church services, sporting events, and other large gatherings" is a minor inconvenience, not a crisis situation. It would even make sense to avoid those as a matter of course during cold/flu season.
- dkarl 7y ago
  That's a massive change to almost every human culture on earth. I don't think you'll find many people willing to write it off as a minor inconvenience.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Smaller gatherings are fine, especially if e.g. limited to folks from your local neighborhood or small town. "Almost every human culture on earth" still functions basically on that scale anyway.
cameldrv 7y ago
Agreed that we're better off overdoing it, but we can't just stay indoors forever. I don't agree that we can get herd immunity without mass death. First, the fatality rate is still high even with medical care. Second, it would take years to process everyone that needs to get it through proper medical care. Finally, to do the flatten the curve strategy, you need to get R0 at exactly 1.0. Too high and it blows up again. But if you get it a little too low, and you keep it there for a while, the virus just dies out. If we're capable of keeping R0 at exactly 1.0 for five years, we're certainly capable of keeping it at 0.95 for two years until we have a vaccine.