For anyone that’s REALLY into reading, I found the CDC’s Pre-pandemic planning guide for non-pharmaceutial intervention. TONS of good figures and info, including the (infamous?) bimodal distribution “flatten the curve” plot.
These figures fills me with confidence:
https://t.co/phAnYisZeH?amp=1
How do they ‘blunt the peak’ by not acting to slow the rate of transmission? Isn’t that the important question, the sine qua non of their strategy? I get the argument that eliminating large gatherings reduces the speed of spread, but I don’t really get the argument that not eliminating large gatherings will have no effect on the speed of spread.
draxen
2876
In the UK we currently have 590 confirmed cases but the government estimates the number is probably closer to 5,000 - 10,000 infected. Possibly not an overreaction?
draxen
2877
They are acting to slow the rate of transmission but with less severe measures. Those with symptoms should self-isolate for 7 days.
They’re not implementing lock down measures yet but may do so in the future - although the only one they’ve described so far is self-isolation for the old/vulnerable regardless of whether they have symptoms or not.
It’s not about not taking action, it’s about choosing what action to take and when…
Wait, are we not at severity 4+5 then? This DOES NOT MAKE ME FEEL BETTER
Not serious about feeling better. The answer is “YOU SHOULD ALREADY BE DOING ALL THE THINGS.”
Why do they think that less severe measures will be more effective than the more severe measures other countries have tried?
Yes, that’s pithy, but if you were bleeding out on the operating table and your surgeon was cleaning his tools, I doubt you’d accept “it’s not about not taking action, it’s about choosing what action to take and when” as a reasonable answer. It’s empty of content. What’s the argument that less extreme measures will work well?
CraigM
2881
Oregon had the same number yesterday when the governor made the same decision and limit.
We’re better off than either neighbor so lets hope it stays that way.
Arsenal Manager Mikel Arteta has tested positive for coronavirus.
Gunners entire team self-isolating.
I’m skeptical we’ll have EPL this weekend now.
To their credit an NHS head twitted that he was happy schools wouldn’t close because that would really impair NHS staffing.
Which puts the government decision in context and raises question on why UK healthcare workers can’t find anybody to take care of the kids like healthcare workers all over Europe or maybe points to an already severe understaffing of the NHS (which would not bode well).
Anyway, UK experts are acting against CDC and WHO advise. Maybe they are onto something, but maybe they are very wrong.
draxen
2884
Your questions are valid and I don’t have the answers because I don’t know enough about the model or the data. Perhaps you’re right. I don’t know for sure. Their plan seems like a good one to me but we can only wait and see if they are making the right choice or not.
I saw that, too, but it struck me as possibly quite the wrong motivation. It’s better to let the contagion spread among large groups of children than to figure out how to provide day care is not a great take IMO.
This is why I’m directing the questions at you. You keep saying it seems like a good plan. I’m asking why it seems that way to you. Is it simply that they said it is the best plan?
Oh, and this happened like exactly 55 minutes after this press release from the league:
Now they’re holding an emergency meeting tomorrow. Can’t imagine play will go on.
jsnell
2887
Well, in addition to waiting, we can also reason about what their best case scenario is. Given the parameters they say they’re working with, the peak of the infection curve is going to be absolutely horrific. A plan where the best case scenario is ending up like Iran doesn’t seem great.
Again, they’re not even launching the gentlest of policies that would achieve something right now, even if they’re unlikely to cause “fatigue”. E.g. it’s absolutely amazing that they’re not restricting mass gatherings in any way. This would be by far the most efficient way of moving the peak later, and thus having more time to build up capacity / gain more knowledge of which treaments work / etc.
Instead it’s just these insane policies about recommending 70 year olds not go on cruises, and canceling school trips abroad. Like either of those would be happening anyway.
These are the actions of people who want to do nothing, but must be seen as doing something.
Damn, that’s a lot of monkey.
draxen
2889
From what they’ve described they have a model and have calculated that taking action too soon is not optimal. Seems like sound reasoning to me.
ShivaX
2890
That is never, ever the case with a pandemic scenario.
Like… ever.
Always “overreact” and overreact early.
Edit: Also we’re way past the early stage and it’s no overreacting at this point, it’s just reacting.
You take them at their word, then? You have faith that they are right? And you’re not judging their reasoning, because you don’t know what it is, because you don’t know or understand their model. You’re just assuming they are right?
I’m just trying to understand why you agree. That’s all.
draxen
2892
Yes.
Equally, you have no proof that extreme isolation measures are effective over the long term.
What happens once the lock down is lifted?
The virus spreads again?
Apparently this was officially on a city of Murfreesboro account earlier today. Eventually they took it down, but…yeeesh.
