4 ms·
These options are so soft that they really are equivalent to doing nothing. Sick people have always been told to stay home; trips abroad and on ships might caus
by knzhou 6y ago
These options are so soft that they really are equivalent to doing nothing. Sick people have always been told to stay home; trips abroad and on ships might cause visible clusters early on, but they're a drop in the bucket later when the disease is already at home.
The real issue is that a strong response causes people to take things seriously, and a weak response causes them to not take it seriously. In other words, just like the model, we have a situation where predicted results inform the actions taken, which affect popular opinion, which in turn change the predicted results.
Yes, the optimal outcome is to somehow have the government do nothing, thus restricting nobody's freedoms, but simultaneously have society take it so seriously that they eradicate the disease themselves in two weeks. But that is not a genuine policy option.
- Traster 6y agoYou say that, but your intuition about those measures isn't good enough, which is why we needed a reliable model to tell us whether those measures were going to be effective, that's the entire point of the research. If our starting point is "Oh well obviously we need to do lock down" then why are we wasting money on modelling it? And since we haven't modelled the system without public policy intervention, none of the results mean anything.