Not necessarily. Think of Y2K. Because the precautions were so good, the problem never happened, and then a lot of people questioned whether the precautions were even necessary. If a democratic...
One approach is to gradually increase measures. Unfortunately, that gives precious time for the virus to spread. If you want to be safe, do it Wuhan style. People might complain now, but they’ll thank you later.
Not necessarily. Think of Y2K. Because the precautions were so good, the problem never happened, and then a lot of people questioned whether the precautions were even necessary.
If a democratic government follows China's lead and imposes a massive lockdown, thereby preventing millions of infections and thousands of deaths, a lot of people will say afterwards that there was no need for the lockdown because the disease wasn't a big problem.
I only skimmed, but that "hyperbolic" opening sounds realistic to me. It's the same "flatten the curve" message you see elsewhere. It's exponential. More people in the hospital at once means that...
I only skimmed, but that "hyperbolic" opening sounds realistic to me. It's the same "flatten the curve" message you see elsewhere.
It's exponential. More people in the hospital at once means that they will probably use the hallways, and care will be worse, so yes, more people will die.
The actions that need to be taken are to cancel public events and to get everyone who can to stay home. Testing is indirectly useful if the numbers get more people to do that. There's no reason to wait.
There is no direct feedback, so for any given person, it is unlikely that we will know for sure what would have happened if we weren't more careful. But collectively, the more people who take it seriously, the better.
There's another, equally important, takeaway: taking action quicker also sees a much lower rate of death. Look at the final graph. Read this paragraph: Taking action is good. Taking action...
The main takeaway is that countries that take action (not necessarily mass quarantine like China) see a much lower rate of death.
There's another, equally important, takeaway: taking action quicker also sees a much lower rate of death. Look at the final graph. Read this paragraph:
This is an exponential threat. Every day counts. When you’re delaying by a single day a decision, you’re not contributing to a few cases maybe. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases in your community already. Every day that there isn’t social distancing, these cases grow exponentially.
Taking action is good. Taking action earlier, even by one day, is better.
One caution I have right now (still working through it) is that the difference between the actual and known cases is a function of test rollout. Looking around, china must've had trouble getting...
One caution I have right now (still working through it) is that the difference between the actual and known cases is a function of test rollout. Looking around, china must've had trouble getting that rolling (by virtue of being "patient zero"), as seems to be the case now for the USA. Germany seems to be doing well there, at least if death/infection ratio is an indicator.
So his point of "the chinese locked wuhan down when they had 500 cases and it was already kinda too late" doesn't transfer as well.
ETA: He gets to deaths as an indicator for detection rate.
I'm starting to work from home tomorrow and I highly doubt many things will be opened next week. Just look how many days behind the Italian curve you are and it should give you a good idea of the...
I'm starting to work from home tomorrow and I highly doubt many things will be opened next week. Just look how many days behind the Italian curve you are and it should give you a good idea of the timings.
Not necessarily. Think of Y2K. Because the precautions were so good, the problem never happened, and then a lot of people questioned whether the precautions were even necessary.
If a democratic government follows China's lead and imposes a massive lockdown, thereby preventing millions of infections and thousands of deaths, a lot of people will say afterwards that there was no need for the lockdown because the disease wasn't a big problem.
That has been an issue with hurricane warnings but I don't think it's very likely this time.
It's worldwide. There will be bad examples to point at.
How reliable is this analysis?
I only skimmed, but that "hyperbolic" opening sounds realistic to me. It's the same "flatten the curve" message you see elsewhere.
It's exponential. More people in the hospital at once means that they will probably use the hallways, and care will be worse, so yes, more people will die.
The actions that need to be taken are to cancel public events and to get everyone who can to stay home. Testing is indirectly useful if the numbers get more people to do that. There's no reason to wait.
There is no direct feedback, so for any given person, it is unlikely that we will know for sure what would have happened if we weren't more careful. But collectively, the more people who take it seriously, the better.
If you want something more formal, here's commentary from a scientific paper with a similar chart:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30567-5/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR38ziHJTRp2t1atq7FVCICPcNS2dlwVcbOgp-z5LuoWUxW1poBhMizOjbA
There's another, equally important, takeaway: taking action quicker also sees a much lower rate of death. Look at the final graph. Read this paragraph:
Taking action is good. Taking action earlier, even by one day, is better.
Ted X means anyone can sign up to give a talk, right? They’re not the same as regular Ted talks.
Then again, it's not like a TED talk is much of a qualifier...
One caution I have right now (still working through it) is that the difference between the actual and known cases is a function of test rollout. Looking around, china must've had trouble getting that rolling (by virtue of being "patient zero"), as seems to be the case now for the USA. Germany seems to be doing well there, at least if death/infection ratio is an indicator.
So his point of "the chinese locked wuhan down when they had 500 cases and it was already kinda too late" doesn't transfer as well.
ETA: He gets to deaths as an indicator for detection rate.
I'm starting to work from home tomorrow and I highly doubt many things will be opened next week. Just look how many days behind the Italian curve you are and it should give you a good idea of the timings.