SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jacco Wallinga's computer simulations are about to face a high-stakes reality check. Wallinga is a mathematician and the chief epidemic modeler at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), which is advising the Dutch government on what actions, such as closing schools and businesses, will help control the spread of the novel coronavirus in the country.
[...] COVID-19 isn't the first infectious disease scientists have modeled—Ebola and Zika are recent examples—but never has so much depended on their work. Entire cities and countries have been locked down based on hastily done forecasts that often haven't been peer reviewed. "It has suddenly become very visible how much the response to infectious diseases is based on models," Wallinga says. For the modelers, "it's a huge responsibility," says epidemiologist Caitlin Rivers of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, who co-authored a report about the future of outbreak modeling in the United States that her center released yesterday.
Just how influential those models are became apparent over the past 2 weeks in the United Kingdom. Based partly on modeling work by a group at Imperial College London, the U.K. government at first implemented fewer measures than many other countries—not unlike the strategy the Netherlands is pursuing. Citywide lockdowns and school closures, as China initially mandated, "would result in a large second epidemic once measures were lifted," a group of modelers that advises the government concluded in a statement. Less severe controls would still reduce the epidemic's peak and make any rebound less severe, they predicted.
But on 16 March, the Imperial College group published a dramatically revised model that concluded—based on fresh data from the United Kingdom and Italy—that even a reduced peak would fill twice as many intensive care beds as estimated previously, overwhelming capacity. The only choice, they concluded, was to go all out on control measures. At best, strict measures might be periodically eased for short periods, the group said (see graphic, below). The U.K. government shifted course within days and announced a strict lockdown.
Epidemic modelers are the first to admit their projections can be off. "All models are wrong, but some are useful," statistician George Box supposedly once said—a phrase that has become a cliché in the field.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2020, @12:16AM (3 children)
I think this is on-topic enough to merit posting in this article. I want to get this off my chest.
The lockdowns in the West aren't full lockdowns. People are still buying stuff, just online rather than in retail stores. We have reduced the pool of people in which COVID-19 can spread, but it's not a full lockdown like in China. We talk a lot about how hospital workers are at risk because they don't have enough personal protective equipment, and with very good reason. But we don't talk nearly as much about the other people who are at risk like the people working in grocery stores, the gas station attendants, and the delivery workers. I'm concerned about how we may be abandoning an underclass of people to contract and spread this virus while others work at home in relative safety.
I live in an apartment building with a call box. Normally, I ask Amazon workers to use the call box, then leave packages at my apartment door. Once they've left the package and are at a safe distance, I retrieve it. This increases the security of my delivery, because it's at least inside a locked building. But it avoids exposing the delivery workers if I were to have the virus.
Two of the last three Amazon delivery workers have told me that my building's call box is broken and nothing happens when they press the buttons. Instead of using the call box, they've called me on their phones. I know it isn't true that the call box is broken. I've tested the call box myself and it works just fine. If it happened once, I'd assume the delivery worker didn't read the instructions. Because it happened a second time, my assumption is they're afraid they're at greater risk if they enter my building. I doubt they're really at greater risk if they enter my building, but I do sympathize with their concerns. Are they afraid of customer or employer retribution if they ask to make an alternative delivery arrangement that doesn't involve going beyond the front door? Do they not have hand sanitizer or any amount of protective equipment to keep them safe?
I'd be more than willing to make an alternative delivery arrangement if a delivery worker feels that's necessary for their safety. No person should be viewed as disposable. But I'm worried that these lockdowns are sacrificing one group of people to protect another. We talk about our hospital workers for good reason, but I'm concerned that we're not doing nearly enough for everyone else who is at high risk.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 27 2020, @05:50PM
Grocery store (and other necessary) workers deserve proper PPE and hazard pay!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2020, @05:58PM (1 child)
The West doesn't do lockdowns.
We do layoffs.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 27 2020, @07:11PM
At least Charter is giving workers $25 restaurant coupons. [arstechnica.com]
(While AT&T front line people get a 20 % bonus. Is $25 coupon worth risking catching this virus? And for a restaurant! In a time of pandumbic.)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.