3 ms·

But Japan's 729 coronavirus deaths imply something around 72,900 infections assuming 1% IFR. They actually report 16k. How could the contact tracing be what's k

But Japan's 729 coronavirus deaths imply something around 72,900 infections assuming 1% IFR. They actually report 16k. How could the contact tracing be what's keeping their Reff < 1, if they're missing ~80% of the cases?

claudeganon 6y ago
Because Japan’s approach to testing, focusing on clusters, results in an undercounting of total cases in favor of the most dangerous set of cases. Cluster-squashing is about identifying and grounding to a halt circumstances where things can grow out of control quickly. They devote most of their resources to this and don’t have mass, on-demand testing like Korea. This results in their undercounting cases (arguably less serious cases, but again we’ll have to see the comparative efficacy long-term between the two countries).
- tripletao 6y ago
  So you're arguing that even though Japan's contact tracing is missing ~80% of the cases, it's still catching the ~20% that would have spread the disease disproportionately? What's the difference between the high-spreading groups that they catch and the low-spreading they don't need to? Is this a characteristic of the patient's biology, behavior, environment, something else? Maybe you're saying that R < 1 almost everywhere in Japan, and they're disproportionately identifying the few places where it's > 1 ("circumstances where things can grow out of control") and intervening? I could believe that; but that still fails to explain why R > 1 there only in a few hotspots, while NYC ended up with ~20% infected even after lockdowns.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    > Maybe you're saying that R < 1 almost everywhere in Japan, and they're disproportionately identifying the few places where it's > 1 ("circumstances where things can grow out of control") and intervening From what I understand, this is the thinking guiding the Japanese government’s response and their zoned lockdowns. Whether or not this is true, or will continue to be true, is unclear, but as you’ve pointed out, they’re roughly on track with South Korea thus far. To your second point: no one really knows. Looking at the example of other countries, universal, correct use of masks does seem to be an important mitigating factor. This was not practiced in NYC until well into the outbreak and social distancing measures were slow to be adopted as well (either by people taking it upon themselves or by government decree).
    - tripletao 6y ago
      I agree fully with your comment above. I'm glad I live in a region with a mask order, though compliance among non-Asians here is hit or miss. That kind of difference (which I guess isn't quite environmental; in an earlier comment I'd included "pre-existing behavioral", which I should have here) has made life easier for the Japanese government and harder for the American one--again, not to excuse the late and confused mask messaging from the USA, just to say that even with early and clear messaging the USA would probably still have had lower and less competent mask use than Japan. I certainly don't mean to suggest we shouldn't be trying our best ideas to control the virus, even if we're not sure whether they'll work or why. I just don't like the idea of low death counts as conclusive evidence that whatever a government is doing is good, especially to the extent it lets authoritarians that have seen low death counts (for reasons related or unrelated to their response) like China promote their models to the rest of the world.

claudeganon 6y ago

Because Japan’s approach to testing, focusing on clusters, results in an undercounting of total cases in favor of the most dangerous set of cases. Cluster-squashing is about identifying and grounding to a halt circumstances where things can grow out of control quickly. They devote most of their resources to this and don’t have mass, on-demand testing like Korea. This results in their undercounting cases (arguably less serious cases, but again we’ll have to see the comparative efficacy long-term between the two countries).

tripletao 6y ago
So you're arguing that even though Japan's contact tracing is missing ~80% of the cases, it's still catching the ~20% that would have spread the disease disproportionately? What's the difference between the high-spreading groups that they catch and the low-spreading they don't need to? Is this a characteristic of the patient's biology, behavior, environment, something else? Maybe you're saying that R < 1 almost everywhere in Japan, and they're disproportionately identifying the few places where it's > 1 ("circumstances where things can grow out of control") and intervening? I could believe that; but that still fails to explain why R > 1 there only in a few hotspots, while NYC ended up with ~20% infected even after lockdowns.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  > Maybe you're saying that R < 1 almost everywhere in Japan, and they're disproportionately identifying the few places where it's > 1 ("circumstances where things can grow out of control") and intervening From what I understand, this is the thinking guiding the Japanese government’s response and their zoned lockdowns. Whether or not this is true, or will continue to be true, is unclear, but as you’ve pointed out, they’re roughly on track with South Korea thus far. To your second point: no one really knows. Looking at the example of other countries, universal, correct use of masks does seem to be an important mitigating factor. This was not practiced in NYC until well into the outbreak and social distancing measures were slow to be adopted as well (either by people taking it upon themselves or by government decree).
  - tripletao 6y ago
    I agree fully with your comment above. I'm glad I live in a region with a mask order, though compliance among non-Asians here is hit or miss. That kind of difference (which I guess isn't quite environmental; in an earlier comment I'd included "pre-existing behavioral", which I should have here) has made life easier for the Japanese government and harder for the American one--again, not to excuse the late and confused mask messaging from the USA, just to say that even with early and clear messaging the USA would probably still have had lower and less competent mask use than Japan. I certainly don't mean to suggest we shouldn't be trying our best ideas to control the virus, even if we're not sure whether they'll work or why. I just don't like the idea of low death counts as conclusive evidence that whatever a government is doing is good, especially to the extent it lets authoritarians that have seen low death counts (for reasons related or unrelated to their response) like China promote their models to the rest of the world.