6 ms·

I think it's a mix between 1 and 2. Eradication is unrealistic. But the optimum is _not_ the point where every last hospital bed is used. It's where the balance

I think it's a mix between 1 and 2. Eradication is unrealistic. But the optimum is _not_ the point where every last hospital bed is used. It's where the balance between lockdown and infections is the most societally acceptable. That is, we want to minimize infections, just not at all costs (to society/economy/...). And similarly, we want to minimize impact on society/economy/..., just not at all cost (to health). Keep in mind that every infection bears a risk for long time health impact or short term (death), no matter if a hospital bed is available or not. Finding this compromise is a matter of opinion and therefore a political question. It's not as easy and black-and-white to formulate as it would be to say whether we do 1 or 2.

colechristensen 6y ago
I believe the goal is/should be a transmission rate of < 1. As long as we can keep it so each infected person has a probability of infecting less than one other person on average, we will be relatively fine. Eradication in the US seems unreasonable, and just keeping hospitals less than overflowing not enough.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
  If you can persistently keep the rate < 1, you will by mathematical definition eradicate the disease. (0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 ... eventually sums to zero.) Keeping it under control but not eradicated means averaging exactly 1 over time, which seems like a much harder balancing act.
  - colechristensen 6y ago
    We're at 26k cases per day in the US, yes if you continue with r<1 for long enough you have few enough cases that you change strategy to eradication, but that isn't really important. Saying what your strategy is now doesn't mean you're bound to it for months or years, you have to shift based on reality, we're not just dealing with a mathematical model. Focusing on the rate as the metric of attention seems very much like the right thing to be at the center of public policy.
  - soledades 6y ago
    Yeah but the r is by various proxies a function of the # of cases, so it is not so simple.
  - richk449 6y ago
    > Keeping it under control but not eradicated means averaging exactly 1 over time, which seems like a much harder balancing act. Just put the control rods - I mean open restaurants - on a control loop driven by number of number of hospitalizations. Helps if you have prompt and delayed transmission modes, so you can regulate at the slower speed.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  It confuses me why r < 1 isn't the goal everywhere. It seems like such an obvious thing to aim for. Any ideas?
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    If you don't set achievable goals then you just waste a lot of resources trying to achieve them.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      Why is this not achievable? New York pulled it off...
      - austhrow743 6y ago
        Seems to be politicised. You have a significant portion of the country treating not wearing masks or social distancing as a political statement. I'm not saying it's not achievable. Just that you need to evaluate if it is achievable before you focus on it and it certainly doesn't seem like its "obvious" that it is to me.
      - zaroth 6y ago
        New York pulled what off? The highest cases per capita of anywhere in the US, bad policy allowing it to ravage their nursing homes. Not surprising after COVID burned through their population (quarantine or not) the case numbers have subsided. If anything NYC demonstrates that quarantine was entirely ineffective, and that the biggest mistake was not focusing on protecting the people actually at risk. The most interesting takeaway from COVID is that “both sides” were right. It is much more deadly than an average flu (for the elderly) and also much less deadly than the average flu (for those under 50).
        dataflow 6y ago
        > Not surprising after COVID burned through their population (quarantine or not) the case numbers have subsided. If anything NYC demonstrates that quarantine was entirely ineffective, and that the biggest mistake was not focusing on protecting the people actually at risk. Are you serious? How do you even come up with misinformation like this and not even bother to back anything up with any sources? How do you seriously look at the case charts and pretend like going from 10k cases/day to 500 cases/day was an inevitable outcome resulting from burning through nursing homes? It would be funny if it weren't completely insulting to their herculean efforts in containing everything when so much of the rest of the country is going in the opposite direction. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronav...
EdwardDiego 6y ago
Eradication is unrealistic for the US _now_.

colechristensen 6y ago

I believe the goal is/should be a transmission rate of < 1. As long as we can keep it so each infected person has a probability of infecting less than one other person on average, we will be relatively fine. Eradication in the US seems unreasonable, and just keeping hospitals less than overflowing not enough.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
If you can persistently keep the rate < 1, you will by mathematical definition eradicate the disease. (0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 ... eventually sums to zero.) Keeping it under control but not eradicated means averaging exactly 1 over time, which seems like a much harder balancing act.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  We're at 26k cases per day in the US, yes if you continue with r<1 for long enough you have few enough cases that you change strategy to eradication, but that isn't really important. Saying what your strategy is now doesn't mean you're bound to it for months or years, you have to shift based on reality, we're not just dealing with a mathematical model. Focusing on the rate as the metric of attention seems very much like the right thing to be at the center of public policy.
- soledades 6y ago
  Yeah but the r is by various proxies a function of the # of cases, so it is not so simple.
- richk449 6y ago
  > Keeping it under control but not eradicated means averaging exactly 1 over time, which seems like a much harder balancing act. Just put the control rods - I mean open restaurants - on a control loop driven by number of number of hospitalizations. Helps if you have prompt and delayed transmission modes, so you can regulate at the slower speed.
mehrdadn 6y ago
It confuses me why r < 1 isn't the goal everywhere. It seems like such an obvious thing to aim for. Any ideas?
- austhrow743 6y ago
  If you don't set achievable goals then you just waste a lot of resources trying to achieve them.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    Why is this not achievable? New York pulled it off...
    - austhrow743 6y ago
      Seems to be politicised. You have a significant portion of the country treating not wearing masks or social distancing as a political statement. I'm not saying it's not achievable. Just that you need to evaluate if it is achievable before you focus on it and it certainly doesn't seem like its "obvious" that it is to me.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      New York pulled what off? The highest cases per capita of anywhere in the US, bad policy allowing it to ravage their nursing homes. Not surprising after COVID burned through their population (quarantine or not) the case numbers have subsided. If anything NYC demonstrates that quarantine was entirely ineffective, and that the biggest mistake was not focusing on protecting the people actually at risk. The most interesting takeaway from COVID is that “both sides” were right. It is much more deadly than an average flu (for the elderly) and also much less deadly than the average flu (for those under 50).
      - dataflow 6y ago
        > Not surprising after COVID burned through their population (quarantine or not) the case numbers have subsided. If anything NYC demonstrates that quarantine was entirely ineffective, and that the biggest mistake was not focusing on protecting the people actually at risk. Are you serious? How do you even come up with misinformation like this and not even bother to back anything up with any sources? How do you seriously look at the case charts and pretend like going from 10k cases/day to 500 cases/day was an inevitable outcome resulting from burning through nursing homes? It would be funny if it weren't completely insulting to their herculean efforts in containing everything when so much of the rest of the country is going in the opposite direction. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronav...

EdwardDiego 6y ago

Eradication is unrealistic for the US _now_.