Sure the fact that the U.K. has 1200 deaths could be explained by estimating that only .01% die from the disease and thus 12million already had it a week or two ago.marlboroughman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:02 pm“All models are wrong, but some are useful”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03 ... -and-other
That doesn’t seem to agree with the data that we have nor does it explain the complete overload of the healthcare system in Italy, China, Spain, and New York.
Unfortunately, Germany is creeping back slowly to the norm of 1% fatality and I pray for Toby and his mother.
I do agree with this from the article you cited.
Recent data from Hong Kong and Singapore suggest extreme social distancing is hard to keep up, says Gabriel Leung, a modeler at the University of Hong Kong. Both cities are seeing an uptick in cases that he thinks stem at least in part from “response fatigue.” “We were the poster children because we started early. And we went quite heavy,” Leung says. Now, “It's 2 months already, and people are really getting very tired.” He thinks both cities may be on the brink of a “major sustained local outbreak”.
Long lockdowns to slow a disease can also have catastrophic economic impacts that may themselves affect public health. “It’s a three-way tussle,” Leung says, “between protecting health, protecting the economy, and protecting people’s well-being and emotional health.”
The economic fallout isn’t something epidemic models address, Longini says—but that may have to change. “We should probably hook up with some economic modelers and try to factor that in,” he says.