3 ms·

The only reason I agree with you is because you said "the same death rate". If we change it to "a reduced death rate" that's absolutely what we should be assumi

The only reason I agree with you is because you said "the same death rate". If we change it to "a reduced death rate" that's absolutely what we should be assuming. South Korea's measures were born of SARS - we will probably have the same measures ready after this coronavirus. Why not use the lessons learned in South Korea rather than the same ones learned in our own countries?

tripletao 6y ago
I said explicitly that I didn't intend my comment as a defense of incompetent government responses, so I'm not sure why anyone would take it that way? It's certainly true that e.g. the USA would have fewer deaths if our response hadn't been so late and chaotic; but that doesn't mean the same measures that brought South Korea to five deaths per million would have brought the USA anywhere near that.
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  Yes I agree. I understand the point you are making and I don't think what we have contradicted each other. I accept South Korea's measures won't get most Western countries near their death rate. However I felt the need to add that the methods are based on past experience and just because they won't have the same power they will still be extremely effective in combating the virus.
  - tripletao 6y ago
    Certainly fair, though I'd probably replace "extremely effective" with "our best ideas to solve a very serious problem, and therefore worth trying". For example, is Reff < 1 in Korea only because of contact tracing? They're doing a commendable job with that, and it's certainly helping, but by how much? Is their voluntary physical distancing actually responsible for most of their success? Or some yet-unknown factor? I'm not sure how anyone could answer that now with confidence. That uncertainty shouldn't stop us from implementing the best ideas we have, but I believe it should be acknowledged.
    - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
      Agreed. Especially the last part, well put.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Singapore's measures were born of SARS too, and it didn't save them. We should definitely try and learn from other countries, but it doesn't make sense to simply assume that a photocopy of their strategy would have worked as well elsewhere.
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  I agree. I'm not very aware of Singapore's specific case - however I believe they are having a lot of issues because of overcrowding of migrant workers. As far as I see it this is exactly this threads OPs point. i.e The same measures won't reduce the death rate to the same amount. But this does not mean they have not reduced the death rate and aren't good advice everywhere.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  "Singapore's measures were born of SARS too, and it didn't save them." Singapore has 21 deaths as of May 14. Adjusting this number to the US population gives 1,117 deaths. The US has 89,908 deaths and rising. I would gladly trade with Singapore.
  - tripletao 6y ago
    What makes you think we ever had the option to? Singapore's response was certainly better than the USA's, and the American equivalent of that would near-certainly have resulted in fewer deaths; but why do you think that explains most of the difference between the two countries' death rates? In particular, how do you explain Japan? They barely locked down, and they're missing most of their cases so the contact tracing is at best reducing Reff by ~20% (per below). I personally suspect that Japan has benefited from some combination of masks, a culture of hygiene and distance, and the weather; but I'm far from confident, and disappointed to see others behaving with such apparent confidence in the face of all we don't know.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      I don't know what makes this virus spread or not spread. All I know is that as long as another Wuhan/Lombardy/NYC is still possible, we should be doing every damned thing we can do to control this epidemic as though it's deadly everywhere. Hopefully scientists will figure out that chrysanthemum pollen or TB vaccinations reduce the severity, and then we can deploy that tool here. Until that happens: we have to act like this disease is going to explode. That isn't confidence, it's just common sense.

tripletao 6y ago

I said explicitly that I didn't intend my comment as a defense of incompetent government responses, so I'm not sure why anyone would take it that way? It's certainly true that e.g. the USA would have fewer deaths if our response hadn't been so late and chaotic; but that doesn't mean the same measures that brought South Korea to five deaths per million would have brought the USA anywhere near that.

Johnjonjoan 6y ago
Yes I agree. I understand the point you are making and I don't think what we have contradicted each other. I accept South Korea's measures won't get most Western countries near their death rate. However I felt the need to add that the methods are based on past experience and just because they won't have the same power they will still be extremely effective in combating the virus.
- tripletao 6y ago
  Certainly fair, though I'd probably replace "extremely effective" with "our best ideas to solve a very serious problem, and therefore worth trying". For example, is Reff < 1 in Korea only because of contact tracing? They're doing a commendable job with that, and it's certainly helping, but by how much? Is their voluntary physical distancing actually responsible for most of their success? Or some yet-unknown factor? I'm not sure how anyone could answer that now with confidence. That uncertainty shouldn't stop us from implementing the best ideas we have, but I believe it should be acknowledged.
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    Agreed. Especially the last part, well put.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Singapore's measures were born of SARS too, and it didn't save them. We should definitely try and learn from other countries, but it doesn't make sense to simply assume that a photocopy of their strategy would have worked as well elsewhere.

Johnjonjoan 6y ago
I agree. I'm not very aware of Singapore's specific case - however I believe they are having a lot of issues because of overcrowding of migrant workers. As far as I see it this is exactly this threads OPs point. i.e The same measures won't reduce the death rate to the same amount. But this does not mean they have not reduced the death rate and aren't good advice everywhere.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
"Singapore's measures were born of SARS too, and it didn't save them." Singapore has 21 deaths as of May 14. Adjusting this number to the US population gives 1,117 deaths. The US has 89,908 deaths and rising. I would gladly trade with Singapore.
- tripletao 6y ago
  What makes you think we ever had the option to? Singapore's response was certainly better than the USA's, and the American equivalent of that would near-certainly have resulted in fewer deaths; but why do you think that explains most of the difference between the two countries' death rates? In particular, how do you explain Japan? They barely locked down, and they're missing most of their cases so the contact tracing is at best reducing Reff by ~20% (per below). I personally suspect that Japan has benefited from some combination of masks, a culture of hygiene and distance, and the weather; but I'm far from confident, and disappointed to see others behaving with such apparent confidence in the face of all we don't know.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    I don't know what makes this virus spread or not spread. All I know is that as long as another Wuhan/Lombardy/NYC is still possible, we should be doing every damned thing we can do to control this epidemic as though it's deadly everywhere. Hopefully scientists will figure out that chrysanthemum pollen or TB vaccinations reduce the severity, and then we can deploy that tool here. Until that happens: we have to act like this disease is going to explode. That isn't confidence, it's just common sense.