The modelling showed that implementing measures early on can have a dramatic impact. If all countries were to adopt this strategy at 0.2 deaths per 100,000 population per week, 95 per cent of the deaths could be averted, saving 38.7 million lives.
In my opinion and in my experience this is grossly reckless. We really do not know enough about the propagation of this virus to make any reliable predictions. As we have been seeing in New York, Boston and Washington we have some 30,000, 500, and 550 respectively.
New York is larger but the attack rate is substantially higher. One cannot say the cities are materially different in population risks.
When we see these facts and then when we see the calamities from the London folks we then lose any and all trust that they can make any credible statements. Reckless?
BTW, we tagged this when it came out and the NY Times spread it like a call in a theater.
In a recent NEJM report the authors rationally state:
Thus, several questions are especially critical.
First, what is the full spectrum of disease severity (which can range from asymptomatic, to symptomatic-but-mild, to severe, to requiring hospitalization, to fatal)?
Second, how transmissible is the virus?
Third,
who are the infectors — how do the infected person’s age, the severity
of illness, and other characteristics of a case affect the risk of
transmitting the infection to others? Of vital interest is the role that
asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected persons play in transmission.
When and for how long is the virus present in respiratory secretions?
And
fourth, what are the risk factors for severe illness or death? And how
can we identify groups most likely to have poor outcomes so that we can
focus prevention and treatment efforts?
Posts
