4 ms·

> we're doing all this is to flatten the curb Different people have different goals. One goal would be to reduce the rate of new infections to a level that ho

> we're doing all this is to flatten the curb Different people have different goals. One goal would be to reduce the rate of new infections to a level that hospitals can handle. A different strategy is to reduce the rate of new infections to a much lower level, so that contact tracing and containment is possible, and then open things back up. If a vaccine is available at some point in the next year, the latter strategy saves many lives. It requires a sharp, relatively short (4-6 weeks) shutdown. Afterwards, it requires a high level of testing, quarantine for infected people, widespread use of fever checks in public places, a ban on large events, and extensive contact tracing. Many countries have now successfully deployed this strategy. The US is stuck in limbo. Some states locked down hard, others didn't lock down enough. Things opened up too quickly, without the systems in place to contain the epidemic, and people are largely acting as if SARS-CoV-2 didn't exist any more. The consequence is that new infections never went down to a level where contact tracing is possible, and the rate of new infections is on the rise again.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Different people have different goals, but it's pointless to measure California's status against goals it's not trying to meet.
parliament32 6y ago
>widespread use of fever checks I've never understood this fascination with fever checks. I've never had a fever where I couldn't tell I had a fever -- everyone with a fever perfectly well knows they have a fever. The problem is people trying to hide it, I guess? And if they suppress it with medication, your forehead scanner will be useless anyway. The solution for that is to make quarantine less painful. Here's a list of grocery delivery services, here's a guarantee your employer can't punish you for taking time off work, here's a nursing service that'll call you to check in daily, etc. Enjoy your vacation.
- barneygale 6y ago
  I've never seen a toupée that I couldn't tell was fake.
- bluGill 6y ago
  How do you know you never had a fever you couldn't detect? If you don't check your temperature daily those by definition would have passed you by. The real reason though is people tend to think it ain't that bad and go out. Fever checks stop those people before they infect your shop.
  - parliament32 6y ago
    You're right; a slight one, possibly. But the margin of error on the forehead scanners is so high you're not going to detect anything other than the most serious of fevers, which I guarantee people can tell they have. If you want proper temperature checking you're going to have to get into oral checks, which nobody is willing to do. The forehead scanners are a placebo -- this has been known for a very long time: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thermometers/accuracy-of-forehead-scanning-thermometers-doubted-idUSPAR05104120070810 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thermometers/accuracy-of-...
dehrmann 6y ago
> The US is stuck in limbo. Some states locked down hard, others didn't lock down enough. Umm, I think you mean the world. the nordics can't decide what do do with Sweden. New Zealand will be perpetually close to zero cases, but be sealed off from the world. Obviously US/Brazil tourism is good to go. > Some states locked down hard, others didn't lock down enough. On the world scale, India locked down hard, but failed because arguably, the hard lockdown created more problems. I think Sweden had fewer cases per capita at the peak than the UK, despite avoiding a formal lockdown, but Norway had even fewer. A lot of factors you'd think would be meaningful haven't been, and the ones we're left with is developed East-Asian countries did OK, isolated developed countries did OK, countries lead by populists haven't done so well, and North Korea still claims to have zero cases.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > Umm, I think you mean the world. Not most of Europe and East Asia, and a smattering of countries that have had effective responses. They have suppressed the epidemic to the point where they can reopen most things. They have to be vigilant and monitor the R value, but as long as it hovers around 1, they're okay. The levels of their epidemics are also low enough that they can do effective contact tracing (see, for example, what happened in Beijing recently). In the US, by contrast, there are tens of thousands of new cases every day. Contact tracing is impossible at that point, and parts of the US will probably have to go into lockdown again, unless the US is willing to accept hundreds of thousands of additional deaths. A sharp lockdown lasting about 6 weeks would have put the US in a much better position. > the nordics can't decide what do do with Sweden. Because Sweden refused to lock down. This is the fault of Swedish politics, not the other Nordic countries that took effective action to suppress the virus. > I think Sweden had fewer cases per capita at the peak than the UK, despite avoiding a formal lockdown The UK has had a particularly bad epidemic because early on, the government pursued a "herd immunity" strategy. They waited far too long before locking down.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Different people have different goals, but it's pointless to measure California's status against goals it's not trying to meet.

parliament32 6y ago

>widespread use of fever checks I've never understood this fascination with fever checks. I've never had a fever where I couldn't tell I had a fever -- everyone with a fever perfectly well knows they have a fever. The problem is people trying to hide it, I guess? And if they suppress it with medication, your forehead scanner will be useless anyway. The solution for that is to make quarantine less painful. Here's a list of grocery delivery services, here's a guarantee your employer can't punish you for taking time off work, here's a nursing service that'll call you to check in daily, etc. Enjoy your vacation.

barneygale 6y ago
I've never seen a toupée that I couldn't tell was fake.
bluGill 6y ago
How do you know you never had a fever you couldn't detect? If you don't check your temperature daily those by definition would have passed you by. The real reason though is people tend to think it ain't that bad and go out. Fever checks stop those people before they infect your shop.
- parliament32 6y ago
  You're right; a slight one, possibly. But the margin of error on the forehead scanners is so high you're not going to detect anything other than the most serious of fevers, which I guarantee people can tell they have. If you want proper temperature checking you're going to have to get into oral checks, which nobody is willing to do. The forehead scanners are a placebo -- this has been known for a very long time: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thermometers/accuracy-of-forehead-scanning-thermometers-doubted-idUSPAR05104120070810 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thermometers/accuracy-of-...

dehrmann 6y ago

> The US is stuck in limbo. Some states locked down hard, others didn't lock down enough. Umm, I think you mean the world. the nordics can't decide what do do with Sweden. New Zealand will be perpetually close to zero cases, but be sealed off from the world. Obviously US/Brazil tourism is good to go. > Some states locked down hard, others didn't lock down enough. On the world scale, India locked down hard, but failed because arguably, the hard lockdown created more problems. I think Sweden had fewer cases per capita at the peak than the UK, despite avoiding a formal lockdown, but Norway had even fewer. A lot of factors you'd think would be meaningful haven't been, and the ones we're left with is developed East-Asian countries did OK, isolated developed countries did OK, countries lead by populists haven't done so well, and North Korea still claims to have zero cases.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> Umm, I think you mean the world. Not most of Europe and East Asia, and a smattering of countries that have had effective responses. They have suppressed the epidemic to the point where they can reopen most things. They have to be vigilant and monitor the R value, but as long as it hovers around 1, they're okay. The levels of their epidemics are also low enough that they can do effective contact tracing (see, for example, what happened in Beijing recently). In the US, by contrast, there are tens of thousands of new cases every day. Contact tracing is impossible at that point, and parts of the US will probably have to go into lockdown again, unless the US is willing to accept hundreds of thousands of additional deaths. A sharp lockdown lasting about 6 weeks would have put the US in a much better position. > the nordics can't decide what do do with Sweden. Because Sweden refused to lock down. This is the fault of Swedish politics, not the other Nordic countries that took effective action to suppress the virus. > I think Sweden had fewer cases per capita at the peak than the UK, despite avoiding a formal lockdown The UK has had a particularly bad epidemic because early on, the government pursued a "herd immunity" strategy. They waited far too long before locking down.