[BostonCard]

1.  What "point" is that?



2.  And doesn't any such "point" assume competent track and tracing capability to contain the inevitable cases that will arise?



3.  Didn't realize that Utah (and other states where in-classroom schooling is tried) became part of Canada.



None of the above alters the fundamental point that the US has responded very poorly to the pandemic.  But we are where we are.  And I don't see further shutdowns being embraced unless and until we actually have the much-feared and discussed (but never really seen yet) Hospital Armageddon.

Again, it all comes down to R(eff), the number of people that the average infected person infects.  If it is above 1, then infections are going up, slowly at first, but because of exponential growth, barring intervention (which can include people freaking out and changing behavior voluntarily) eventually the number of cases will reach an unacceptable level.  Different people might have a different level in mind as to what is unacceptable, but because of exponential growth, absent thinking that there is no unacceptable level, eventually you will get there.

In my mind, then, policy should be geared towards keeping R(eff) at or below 1.  Every restriction you lift is likely to push R(eff) up a little bit, and every restriction you impose, is likely to push it down a bit.  Obviously, some make a much bigger difference than others, based on two factors: how inherently risky an activity is (outdoors is safer than indoors, fewer people is safer than more people, masking reduces the risk, etc.), and how many people participate in it.  So, under that umbrella, you have to pick which activities you prioritize.  If opening schools is important, then you can do it, but because it involves a large proportion of the population, even if you can open them relatively safely, you are likely going to push R(eff) up substantially, so you will probably be forced to take other measures to keep R(eff) down.

To complicate matters, R(eff) can't be directly observed; it can only be estimated, and usually with a lag of about 2 weeks.  So it is really easy to get into trouble without knowing it, which is what happened in June/July.

You can see how California's R(eff) here:

https://rt.live/us/CA

We are currently estimated to be at around 0.9, and cases are starting to come down.  So, you could say that we probably can relax some things and cases might still be able to continue dropping.

One last thought.  While R(eff) is more important than the number of cases over the long term, over the short term raw case numbers are still important; the higher the case number, the less time you have if cases start rising.

BC

[BostonCard]

1.  What "point" is that?



2.  And doesn't any such "point" assume competent track and tracing capability to contain the inevitable cases that will arise?



3.  Didn't realize that Utah (and other states where in-classroom schooling is tried) became part of Canada.



None of the above alters the fundamental point that the US has responded very poorly to the pandemic.  But we are where we are.  And I don't see further shutdowns being embraced unless and until we actually have the much-feared and discussed (but never really seen yet) Hospital Armageddon.

Again, it all comes down to R(eff), the number of people that the average infected person infects.  If it is above 1, then infections are going up, slowly at first, but because of exponential growth, barring intervention (which can include people freaking out and changing behavior voluntarily) eventually the number of cases will reach an unacceptable level.  Different people might have a different level in mind as to what is unacceptable, but because of exponential growth, absent thinking that there is no unacceptable level, eventually you will get there.

In my mind, then, policy should be geared towards keeping R(eff) at or below 1.  Every restriction you lift is likely to push R(eff) up a little bit, and every restriction you impose, is likely to push it down a bit.  Obviously, some make a much bigger difference than others, based on two factors: how inherently risky an activity is (outdoors is safer than indoors, fewer people is safer than more people, masking reduces the risk, etc.), and how many people participate in it.  So, under that umbrella, you have to pick which activities you prioritize.  If opening schools is important, then you can do it, but because it involves a large proportion of the population, even if you can open them relatively safely, you are likely going to push R(eff) up substantially, so you will probably be forced to take other measures to keep R(eff) down.

To complicate matters, R(eff) can't be directly observed; it can only be estimated, and usually with a lag of about 2 weeks.  So it is really easy to get into trouble without knowing it, which is what happened in June/July.

You can see how California's R(eff) here:

https://rt.live/us/CA

We are currently estimated to be at around 0.9, and cases are starting to come down.  So, you could say that we probably can relax some things and cases might still be able to continue dropping.

One last thought.  While R(eff) is more important than the number of cases over the long term, over the short term raw case numbers are still important; the higher the case number, the less time you have if cases start rising.

BC