I'm under total quarantine in a student dorm in poland
Can't live my room :S
Watsisname wrote:Source of the post The virus does not have some intrinsic transmission coefficient or mortality rate. Both depend on how we respond to it.
midtskogen wrote:Watsisname wrote:Source of the post The virus does not have some intrinsic transmission coefficient or mortality rate. Both depend on how we respond to it.
This is important. When all this is over, the mortality will say less about the virus itself than it will tell how well we are able to protect the vulnerable. Complete lockdowns and travel restrictions will help, but in an indirect way. Isolation of the vulnerable is more direct and may be more effective at a much lower cost. I think the right approach is to be pragmatic about restrictions for low risk people, but very strict when it comes to isolating the vulnerable.
Stellarator wrote:midtskogen wrote:A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post give everyone $1,000 to stimulate the economy after this horror ends. A $1 trillion stimulus package
From where? Tax increases? Borrow from China? Banknote printing?
Generally speaking, these emergency funds are from governmental contingencies established prior for these situations, or set-up during the onset. Most Western countries are now implementing these. While most do not apply to *every* citizen, a greater concern is simply how long these would last and just how effective they are at alleviating financial burdens.
midtskogen wrote:As mentioned before, it may be worth looking at Norway and Sweden which have chosen different strategies. Norway chose "the hammer" shutting down just about everything, whilst Sweden chose to keep most things running focusing on isolating the vulnerable. Sweden in blue and Norway in pink below. The testing methodology might differ and Sweden has almost twice the population, but it's the shape of the curves that matters most.
I think Tomas Pueyo's "flattening the curve" message in his "Why You Must Act Now" was good, but the "hammer" message in his follow-up is likely to be wrong or at least exaggerated or not very nuanced, i.e. that R must be kept below 1. We can probably do fine with an R slightly above 1. The main real effect of the hammer is to make the restrictions that remain after the most severe have been lifted, more acceptable to the public. However, if only the long term restrictions and general caution had been in effect from the beginning, the result would be more or less the same bit not economically. As long as the healthcare system is at top of the problem, the hammer will make more harm than good and an early hammer does not seem to be required to keep things under control.