WriterVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,383
- Likes
- 5,953
From 550,000 to 20.000 just from distancing which most don’t adhere to while getting their toilet paper. He even said it was because more people had actually had it already than what they based their numbers on. He basically said the model was wrong period but gave credit to some of the implementations because they can’t be completely wrong. I actually applaud him for being truthful.
Maybe you read a different article I haven't seen. I don't see where he talks about more people having it. Another team released a model that said that. He says some of their assumptions don't match observed data.
It wasn't just distancing that dropped the projections. The distancing slowed it down and allowed hospitals to get more resources in place. It allowed infections to be spread out over longer periods. And, yes, a quick trip to the market isn't going to spread the virus as fast as kids in school or people sitting in close quarters in an office setting all day. Time and proximity aid in transmission.
I'm not trying to go to bat for one model or the other. I'm just for measures that allow our hospitals to stay ahead of the curve. So far, we're doing that. We'll see how the coming weeks play out.
I think the best long-term strategy is testing and tracing until a vaccine or better antivirals are available. The US and UK weren't there on the testing front when this thing started to take off.