3 ms·

Thanks for the link, that was a fascinating watch, but I don't think they're modeling a return to normal life there. They assume a transmission rate that is de

by dkarl 7y ago

Thanks for the link, that was a fascinating watch, but I don't think they're modeling a return to normal life there. They assume a transmission rate that is decreased by social distancing measures, and they leave the transmission rate constant over time. I think that means they are modeling what happens if we continue the same social distancing practices indefinitely, rather than a return to normal life. Another way of looking at it is that they are modeling herd immunity under social distancing, which is achieved at a lower infection rate than herd immunity under normal social behavior.

eesmith 7y ago
I believe it's the latter - a fast spread will overshoot past the minimum herd immunity, while a slower spread won't, thus resulting in fewer overall deaths and ICU visits. In other words, shrinking the area under the curve while flattening the curve. Of course, that's a highly simplified model, might not be true, etc., etc. But it gives me, a leftist, some support for my belief that some "social distancing for as long as it takes" is a more reasonable viewpoint than no social distancing. (I replaced "strict" with "some" because I prefer the Swedish model - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22768170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22768170 . I just haven't a clue for how things will turn out.)