Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
These are all great considerations, and we do discuss some of these as sensitivity But given the incredible difference between the costs and benefits, it will be almost impossible to make the lockdown a good use of resources
I am surprised you would say "Your job is to show innaction & immediate deaths is "cheaper" than action" That just wrong. We're trying to find what works best I would encourage you to try to show other parameter choices that would show a lockdown is a great idea for Malawi
That would help the conversation forward, and also help Malawi (and Ghana and other countries) And it would also be helpful to hear your reply to why it wouldn't be better first to help the people with HIV, where we can avoid more deaths at 4,000th the cost
I agree this & perhaps most of your work is motivated by finding what's best. But best for what? Best for the maintenance of a system that can produce such inequalities and harm? Because you cannot consider radical changes to it.
Ur right, harder for analysis to estimate radical changes, but guess we both agree that some reasonable estimates of impacts (+/-) of a radical change still better than no estimates I'm curious: what do you think would be the radical solution against corona for Malawi?
"We're trying to find what works best" would be more convincing if it wasn't so easy to predict your conclusions on nearly every single issue.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
