3 ms·

Why wont you talk about the predicted numbers? It would be more useful than cheap shots. The paragraph you quoted is unrelated to the prediction. p16: "In the

Why wont you talk about the predicted numbers? It would be more useful than cheap shots. The paragraph you quoted is unrelated to the prediction. p16: "In the most effective mitigation strategy examined, which leads to a single, relatively short epidemic (case isolation, household quarantine and social distancing of the elderly), the surge limits for both general ward and ICU beds would be exceeded by at least 8-fold under the more optimistic scenario for critical care requirements that we examined. In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US." We achieved better results than the best case estimate for the US in that paper, and not by a little.

Retric 6y ago
The prediction is not based on suppression but mitigation, thus we are outside the model. But for now suppression is holding steady in the US and UK. With current rates projected out for 18 months being lower than the predicted mitigation strategy. That said, there seems to be significant pressure to reopen, so we are likely to experience the mitigation strategy starting in a few months.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  Why wont you talk about the predicted numbers? Which professional pre-peak US prediction did you find suprisingly accurate? Clearly it's not this one.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Suppression can limit spread to an arbitrarily small number depending on when it’s implemented. They correctly stated it’s capable of stopping exponential growth and that each mitigation or suppression strategy’s effectiveness depends on when it’s implemented. So, if we started a week earlier the daily death toll would be ~1/10th as large. That prediction exactly matches observed outcomes. Do you expect them to predict our public policy and it’s date of implication?
    - jakeogh 6y ago
      There are no studies that I am aware of that predicted the exceptional outcome the US has had as far as total deaths. If there are, please link to them. The study that you think is suprisingly accurate, has a minimum number of 1.1M dead if we implemented "case isolation, household quarantine and social distancing of the elderly" in the US, which is a reasonable approximation of what we did.

Retric 6y ago

The prediction is not based on suppression but mitigation, thus we are outside the model. But for now suppression is holding steady in the US and UK. With current rates projected out for 18 months being lower than the predicted mitigation strategy. That said, there seems to be significant pressure to reopen, so we are likely to experience the mitigation strategy starting in a few months.

jakeogh 6y ago
Why wont you talk about the predicted numbers? Which professional pre-peak US prediction did you find suprisingly accurate? Clearly it's not this one.
- Retric 6y ago
  Suppression can limit spread to an arbitrarily small number depending on when it’s implemented. They correctly stated it’s capable of stopping exponential growth and that each mitigation or suppression strategy’s effectiveness depends on when it’s implemented. So, if we started a week earlier the daily death toll would be ~1/10th as large. That prediction exactly matches observed outcomes. Do you expect them to predict our public policy and it’s date of implication?
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    There are no studies that I am aware of that predicted the exceptional outcome the US has had as far as total deaths. If there are, please link to them. The study that you think is suprisingly accurate, has a minimum number of 1.1M dead if we implemented "case isolation, household quarantine and social distancing of the elderly" in the US, which is a reasonable approximation of what we did.