2 ms·

There is a global average infection rate. Of course it's just an average, but is representative of the growth of global cases. Of course you can arbitrarily div

There is a global average infection rate. Of course it's just an average, but is representative of the growth of global cases. Of course you can arbitrarily divide this down from hundreds of epidemics to thousands of outbreaks, but we're talking about the global supply of the drug. > It’s also dangerously wrong, but human nature, to look at the current state of epidemics and project their future state. I'm sorry, but in the real world you have to make predictions in order to make decisions. If you never make predictions you can always be right, but then you'll always be useless. > Epidemics that have been suppressed rather than extinguished resemble unstable explosives. Just because they’re sitting there nicely today doesn’t mean they won’t explode 3 seconds from now. An "explosion" in that sense will still take weeks to become critical, giving you time to react, assuming you have testing and tracing capacity.

cheriot 7y ago
> There is a global average infection rate. Of course it's just an average, but is representative of the growth of global cases Flattening the curve in NYC and Lombardy does not change the trajectory of Brazil and every other developing country. Even India’s fast response is less likely to work than a rich country’s shelter in place. As long as there is exponential spread out there it will keep showing up wherever you call home.
jhayward 7y ago
> I'm sorry, but in the real world you have to make predictions in order to make decisions. I'll overlook the implication that I don't live in the 'real world'. What the statement means is that just because you're fine today you can ease up, because you really don't like the shutdown. You're still standing in an explosives factory, and now propose to shoot off bottle rockets just because nothing bad has happened today. In the real world, you look at conditions as they are. In this case, those conditions are that the virus is still epidemic and there are none of the preconditions necessary to contain it present in the US, at least, and also in most of Europe. > assuming you have testing and tracing capacity Where is it that you are describing, since you are 'in the real world'? Here in the US there is no where that I am aware of that has sufficient testing and tracing capacity to deal with a 3-week old exponential outbreak.

cheriot 7y ago

> There is a global average infection rate. Of course it's just an average, but is representative of the growth of global cases Flattening the curve in NYC and Lombardy does not change the trajectory of Brazil and every other developing country. Even India’s fast response is less likely to work than a rich country’s shelter in place. As long as there is exponential spread out there it will keep showing up wherever you call home.

jhayward 7y ago

> I'm sorry, but in the real world you have to make predictions in order to make decisions. I'll overlook the implication that I don't live in the 'real world'. What the statement means is that just because you're fine today you can ease up, because you really don't like the shutdown. You're still standing in an explosives factory, and now propose to shoot off bottle rockets just because nothing bad has happened today. In the real world, you look at conditions as they are. In this case, those conditions are that the virus is still epidemic and there are none of the preconditions necessary to contain it present in the US, at least, and also in most of Europe. > assuming you have testing and tracing capacity Where is it that you are describing, since you are 'in the real world'? Here in the US there is no where that I am aware of that has sufficient testing and tracing capacity to deal with a 3-week old exponential outbreak.