11-30-2020, 11:22 AM
A few comments:
First, in the midst of a fast moving pandemic, uncertainty is unavoidable. Yes, it would be great to have all the data, and target activities spreading COVID-19 with surgical precision, but alas, it will take years to collect and analyze all the data. We have imperfect knowledge of transmission dynamics of influenza, which has been around for centuries. At best, we are dealing with imperfect information and making educated guesses.
I suppose a more honest accounting would demand an acknowledgement of these facts. Perhaps more transparency about the limitations of our scientific knowledge is called for. But there is also an obligation on the other side not to weaponize scientific uncertainty. I think there is a tendency of opponents of certain public policy measures of taking scientific uncertainty and turning it into known-nothingism. That's not helpful.
A better debate would start by acknowledging the uncertainty and the competing costs for various policy choices in that uncertainty. Shutting things down (especially if it has little effect on the pandemic) has a heavy cost, to businesses, to employees, to schoolchildren, to physical and mental health. The flip side also carries costs, especially on vulnerable people, but the virus is capricious, and it can strike younger, healthy people (though rarely), cause long term sequelae even to those who recover, and has even been associated with a pretty serious inflammatory disorder in kids even as most of them are minimally affected. There are also costs to hospitals and healthcare workers of continuing to operate in a near constant state of overload. Whether the uncertainty should be calibrated towards the needs of the former or the needs of the latter is a discussion worth having.
That being said, one thing that is not well understood is that we are not capable of calibrating our activities to a certain level of infection, but rather to a certain growth rate. In that context, unless you set your threshold as "no level of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths is unacceptable" then so long as the caseloads are growing, we will eventually hit that level. So, even if you think ~150,000 daily cases, 90,000 hospitalizations, and 1500 deaths/day is acceptable and draw your line at 300,000 cases, 150,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 deaths/day, as long as caseloads are growing, then you will eventually get to your limit, barring an intervention or some change in the transmission dynamics.
BC
First, in the midst of a fast moving pandemic, uncertainty is unavoidable. Yes, it would be great to have all the data, and target activities spreading COVID-19 with surgical precision, but alas, it will take years to collect and analyze all the data. We have imperfect knowledge of transmission dynamics of influenza, which has been around for centuries. At best, we are dealing with imperfect information and making educated guesses.
I suppose a more honest accounting would demand an acknowledgement of these facts. Perhaps more transparency about the limitations of our scientific knowledge is called for. But there is also an obligation on the other side not to weaponize scientific uncertainty. I think there is a tendency of opponents of certain public policy measures of taking scientific uncertainty and turning it into known-nothingism. That's not helpful.
A better debate would start by acknowledging the uncertainty and the competing costs for various policy choices in that uncertainty. Shutting things down (especially if it has little effect on the pandemic) has a heavy cost, to businesses, to employees, to schoolchildren, to physical and mental health. The flip side also carries costs, especially on vulnerable people, but the virus is capricious, and it can strike younger, healthy people (though rarely), cause long term sequelae even to those who recover, and has even been associated with a pretty serious inflammatory disorder in kids even as most of them are minimally affected. There are also costs to hospitals and healthcare workers of continuing to operate in a near constant state of overload. Whether the uncertainty should be calibrated towards the needs of the former or the needs of the latter is a discussion worth having.
That being said, one thing that is not well understood is that we are not capable of calibrating our activities to a certain level of infection, but rather to a certain growth rate. In that context, unless you set your threshold as "no level of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths is unacceptable" then so long as the caseloads are growing, we will eventually hit that level. So, even if you think ~150,000 daily cases, 90,000 hospitalizations, and 1500 deaths/day is acceptable and draw your line at 300,000 cases, 150,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 deaths/day, as long as caseloads are growing, then you will eventually get to your limit, barring an intervention or some change in the transmission dynamics.
BC