3 ms·

You're acting like there were parts of the US in 100% lockdown vs 0% lockdown, when the difference is a lot more like 20% (max) vs 10%, and it's a lot harder to

You're acting like there were parts of the US in 100% lockdown vs 0% lockdown, when the difference is a lot more like 20% (max) vs 10%, and it's a lot harder to suss out any difference in result when the difference in practice is that small.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
If lockdown explains most of the variance between Australia's 1k deaths and America's 500k deaths, then the difference between 10% and 20% lockdown should still be very visible.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Few relationships in the real world are linear. That is just an assumption that makes the math easier.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Sure, but there's a point where the hypothesis just becomes unfalsifiable. Is there any evidence that would convince you lockdown policy isn't the primary factor here?
- anoonmoose 6y ago
  That's a big "if" at the beginning of your sentence.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. That was the "if" that started this comment thread - an assertion that the US would be back to normal already if only it had done what Australia did.
- zuminator 6y ago
  That doesn't follow. Imagine the effective spread ("Re") of a disease averages 1.5. Certain external factors, such as climate, population density, access to medicine, diet, etc. can cause a 0.2 plus or minus variance in Re. So, 1.3-1.7 range. Each 10% of lockdown will cause a 10% reduction in that amount. So if Florida does a 10% lockdown, its Re will be somewhere in the 1.3-1.7 range reduced by 10% or 1.17-1.53. If California does a 20% lockdown, its Re will be in the 1.04-1.36 range. California, if "unlucky" can still have a worse Re (1.36) than Florida if "lucky" (1.17). Meanwhile Australia at a say 70% lockdown would see numbers in the 0.39-0.51 range, well below sustained transmission levels even if "unlucky."
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Makes sense. Thanks for doing out the math, that's pretty convincing to me.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

If lockdown explains most of the variance between Australia's 1k deaths and America's 500k deaths, then the difference between 10% and 20% lockdown should still be very visible.

mcguire 6y ago
Few relationships in the real world are linear. That is just an assumption that makes the math easier.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Sure, but there's a point where the hypothesis just becomes unfalsifiable. Is there any evidence that would convince you lockdown policy isn't the primary factor here?
anoonmoose 6y ago
That's a big "if" at the beginning of your sentence.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. That was the "if" that started this comment thread - an assertion that the US would be back to normal already if only it had done what Australia did.
zuminator 6y ago
That doesn't follow. Imagine the effective spread ("Re") of a disease averages 1.5. Certain external factors, such as climate, population density, access to medicine, diet, etc. can cause a 0.2 plus or minus variance in Re. So, 1.3-1.7 range. Each 10% of lockdown will cause a 10% reduction in that amount. So if Florida does a 10% lockdown, its Re will be somewhere in the 1.3-1.7 range reduced by 10% or 1.17-1.53. If California does a 20% lockdown, its Re will be in the 1.04-1.36 range. California, if "unlucky" can still have a worse Re (1.36) than Florida if "lucky" (1.17). Meanwhile Australia at a say 70% lockdown would see numbers in the 0.39-0.51 range, well below sustained transmission levels even if "unlucky."
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Makes sense. Thanks for doing out the math, that's pretty convincing to me.