[teejers1]

 I may have a different takeaway from this as you — to me, the data *supports* a stricter shelter-in-place now. Why should people be getting sick now when there’s a major development in repurposed therapeutics like every month? Why get sick now when all the new doctors are in the teaching hospitals (as has been discussed before, fatalities in hospitals increase in July).

Under this reasoning, strict SiP should have been instituted at the jump in effect until major development in repurposed therapeutics is realized (presumably on a widespread basis).  I mean, why risk death or serious long term injury when a viable therapeutic is only 3/6/12 months away (is there any difference using that controlling consideration)? That's certainly one take - and it has the benefit of consistency.  But I'm on the other end - do as much as you reasonably can allow, with hospital capacity being the driver of what is and is not acceptable acitivity.

BTW, is Sweden's death rate among population <60 that much worse than other countries?  It very well could be, as I haven't been following things beyond my county (and to a lesser extent, state).  The reason I ask is that I understood Swedish officials admitting that if they clustered their approach with the older demographic, and if they had been more restrictive with that group, the countries numbers would be much better.

P.S.  BC, what is generally accepted herd immunity percentage?  A friend relayed to me that some data scientist (with medical training) thought NY had essentially contained virus due in no small part to herd immunity.  He said that 20% did the trick.  Putting aside whether such an assertion is valid or not, what I'm wondering is does that figure sound right? Or is it more likely the 20% figure the guy used meant the percentage of population reporting positive testing,  which when multiplied by some factor to account for the number of untested positives gets you closer to the real threshold approaching some form of herd immunity?  Just curious.

[teejers1]

 I may have a different takeaway from this as you — to me, the data *supports* a stricter shelter-in-place now. Why should people be getting sick now when there’s a major development in repurposed therapeutics like every month? Why get sick now when all the new doctors are in the teaching hospitals (as has been discussed before, fatalities in hospitals increase in July).

Under this reasoning, strict SiP should have been instituted at the jump in effect until major development in repurposed therapeutics is realized (presumably on a widespread basis).  I mean, why risk death or serious long term injury when a viable therapeutic is only 3/6/12 months away (is there any difference using that controlling consideration)? That's certainly one take - and it has the benefit of consistency.  But I'm on the other end - do as much as you reasonably can allow, with hospital capacity being the driver of what is and is not acceptable acitivity.

BTW, is Sweden's death rate among population <60 that much worse than other countries?  It very well could be, as I haven't been following things beyond my county (and to a lesser extent, state).  The reason I ask is that I understood Swedish officials admitting that if they clustered their approach with the older demographic, and if they had been more restrictive with that group, the countries numbers would be much better.

P.S.  BC, what is generally accepted herd immunity percentage?  A friend relayed to me that some data scientist (with medical training) thought NY had essentially contained virus due in no small part to herd immunity.  He said that 20% did the trick.  Putting aside whether such an assertion is valid or not, what I'm wondering is does that figure sound right? Or is it more likely the 20% figure the guy used meant the percentage of population reporting positive testing,  which when multiplied by some factor to account for the number of untested positives gets you closer to the real threshold approaching some form of herd immunity?  Just curious.