5 ms·

I told my wife that I've come assumed shelter-in-place IS in place until a vaccine has been developed. Either that, or herd immunity is to a point where going o

• jaywalk 6y ago
  Not a chance that will be the case.
• bpodgursky 6y ago
  The Bay area is not setting up the area for herd immunity -- there are only a hundred cases a day, so it would take many decades to get herd immunity (effectively never, given births and gradual loss of immunity).
  • brianwawok 6y ago
    100 reported cases. There could be anywhere from 5-100x that amount. Lots of people without or with very mild symptoms. Very hard to know without 10-100x the tests we are doing.
• glofish 6y ago
  it is a game of Russian roulette where there is one bullet per 100K empty chambers.
• skellington 6y ago
  As usual, American leaders are choosing OPTION 3 which is the worst option: OPTION 1. (SWEDEN) Control spread just enough to not overwhelm the health care system, but no more than that, in order to get to herd immunity as quickly as possible. This assumes that the area-under-the-curve will be very similar to any option that spreads the time-frame out. This level of lockdown is possible to implement for long periods of time because its impact on regular life is relatively moderate and it doesn't require extreme testing availability or extreme population compliance. OPTION 2. (S KOREA) Control with aggressive contact tracing in order to attempt to eradicate or outlive COVID. This assumes that COVID can be controlled and that doing so will ultimately reduce the area-under-the-curve (because if it didn't, spreading the time-frame out would be pointless). This level of lockdown is possible to implement for long periods of time because its impact on regular life is relatively moderate but it does require extreme testing availability and very high population compliance. We don't yet know what the full impact of 1 vs 2 will be because of externalities that are hard to model, but both seem like legitimate approaches. OPTION 3. (USA) Control spread aggressively so herd immunity won't be reached for a very long time, do this using a shelter-in-place model that will destroy the economy so you'll be forced to abandon it at some point, have no post shelter-in-place plan so resurgence is practically guaranteed since the goal isn't herd immunity nor aggressive contact tracing. Option 3 is the most destructive, so let's choose that one.
  • Skunkleton 6y ago
    We already missed the boat on options 1 and 2 due to various governmental incompetencies. Did you not notice that a full third of all cases globally have been in America?
    • kvetching 6y ago
      That just means that US has the most advanced testing regime.
      • JustResign 6y ago
        You wrote this with a straight face? Or this is a Trump quote?
    • landryraccoon 6y ago
      Cases is a very poor metric for this because a country that does zero tests will have zero cases, and therefore look very good. Total deaths IMHO is much more comparable statistic between countries. By that metric it looks a little better for the US, since we have slightly less than a third of the world death total.
      • dwaltrip 6y ago
        For a better comparison, I think you need to look at deaths per capita. The US is somewhere in the middle of the pack on this metric.
        • Skunkleton 6y ago
          That doesn’t capture what’s important. There are plenty of places that could probably have never closed and not had any real spike in infections. It’s places where people live densely that are at the greatest risk. The Bay Area in particular probably isn’t at the top of that list, but it is still a higher risk area. Really we just need more testing, and randomized testing. I think we would all be able to move forward more intelligently if we had data.