We were told to "flatten the curve." Everybody understood that the area under the curve would be the same, i.e. total infections would be the same. The goal was to avoid spiking over the line -- the line being health care resources. We did.
-
-
Scott, it's entirely possible that thousands of infectious disease epidemiologists are mistaken and/or lying. Or maybe your intuitions are wrong. It's 5:20 AM here; I'm midway through yet another 100 hour week. Wish I could keep trying to find where we differ, but I need sleep.
-
We agree on that! I've been working since 3 AM so I hear you.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Every time we reduce transmission rates we reduce the "overshoot", the difference between the herd immunity threshold and the original epidemic size, even if transmission later rises. Future epidemics are not as big, lives are saved. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2020/04/23/science.abb5659/F1.large.jpg …
-
I just realized the figure in your science piece is essentially the same as fig 3 in my 2007 overshoot paper
but yours is prettier
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2093965/figure/fig3/ … - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Dr. Bergstrom understands the math correctly on this, I'm pretty sure. Reducing R0 should reduce the total number of infections. But reducing R0 too much delays herd immunity unnecessarily, and introduces additional burdens on society, that must be maintained to keep R0 low.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The doc seems like a reasonable guy. My guess is if he spent any time with an epidemiologist, he’d quickly learn the error in his thinking and change his mind. Not a whole lot of epidemiology training in cardiology. Tracing=hard is no reason to give up the best solution.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.