Agree. I've throught about this before. Wrote a quick computer simulation of how this migth play out given current data. A thought that came up was how to keep the healthcare system working at or...
Agree. I've throught about this before. Wrote a quick computer simulation of how this migth play out given current data. A thought that came up was how to keep the healthcare system working at or near capacity - you don't want them slacking because that means your measures on society might be too harsh. You certainly don't want to overwork them. With the intensely delayed hysteresis of the controls you have (time until measures are adopted + time until infection numbers change + time until symptoms (don't) show + time until diagnoses are done + time until hospital beds free up = 1-2 months), it seems impossible to control the epidemic without knowledge we don't have or very harsh measures. Nevermind that it also will be harder to assign a change you do see to one of the many changes you've made.
Plots still do not list case numbers as per-capita basis. I'm disappointed. It's kind of hard to take a factor of ten, sometimes factor of 100 difference in population and still compare absolute...
Plots still do not list case numbers as per-capita basis. I'm disappointed. It's kind of hard to take a factor of ten, sometimes factor of 100 difference in population and still compare absolute case numbers. (china, switzerland e.g.)
Nevermind that his whole argument about herd immunity possibly being in vain assumes that the changes we see to the virus actually affect the immune system. I absolutely grant that giving the...
Nevermind that his whole argument about herd immunity possibly being in vain assumes that the changes we see to the virus actually affect the immune system.
I absolutely grant that giving the virus many hosts makes it easy to mutate. And I grant that we can see mutations in its genome. But his consequence of "there is no immunity"... doesn't follow. He also completely neglects that the coronavirus will be a fact of life until we find a cure. Complete, drastic isolation will curb the spread in all the countries that do so. But that won't help unless everyone does the same. If even one patient remains infected after the lockdown is lifted, we can try again. Ate my words there, he does mention that. In fact he makes a good case of why buying time is useful anyway. All the little and big ways in which we can prepare for what's to come.
I sent the previous article to my whole family last Sunday, who live in a much more conservative area of the US than I do. Yesterday (Thursday) my dad called me and thanked me, said it was helpful...
I sent the previous article to my whole family last Sunday, who live in a much more conservative area of the US than I do. Yesterday (Thursday) my dad called me and thanked me, said it was helpful and made him take this whole thing more seriously, which is encouraging. Going to send this one to everyone as well.
A followup from the author of "Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now." I'm only halfway through but it looks sensible so far, and he's good with graphs.
There's a few graphs at the end that are made up (he explicitly states this) to illustrate some research he wishes someone would do.
Agree. I've throught about this before. Wrote a quick computer simulation of how this migth play out given current data. A thought that came up was how to keep the healthcare system working at or near capacity - you don't want them slacking because that means your measures on society might be too harsh. You certainly don't want to overwork them. With the intensely delayed hysteresis of the controls you have (time until measures are adopted + time until infection numbers change + time until symptoms (don't) show + time until diagnoses are done + time until hospital beds free up = 1-2 months), it seems impossible to control the epidemic without knowledge we don't have or very harsh measures. Nevermind that it also will be harder to assign a change you do see to one of the many changes you've made.
Plots still do not list case numbers as per-capita basis. I'm disappointed. It's kind of hard to take a factor of ten, sometimes factor of 100 difference in population and still compare absolute case numbers. (china, switzerland e.g.)
Nevermind that his whole argument about herd immunity possibly being in vain assumes that the changes we see to the virus actually affect the immune system.
I absolutely grant that giving the virus many hosts makes it easy to mutate. And I grant that we can see mutations in its genome. But his consequence of "there is no immunity"... doesn't follow.
He also completely neglects that the coronavirus will be a fact of life until we find a cure. Complete, drastic isolation will curb the spread in all the countries that do so. But that won't help unless everyone does the same. If even one patient remains infected after the lockdown is lifted, we can try again.Ate my words there, he does mention that. In fact he makes a good case of why buying time is useful anyway. All the little and big ways in which we can prepare for what's to come.I sent the previous article to my whole family last Sunday, who live in a much more conservative area of the US than I do. Yesterday (Thursday) my dad called me and thanked me, said it was helpful and made him take this whole thing more seriously, which is encouraging. Going to send this one to everyone as well.