Thread by @federicolois

[1/n] Preparing everything to respond to the question: "Under our isolation epidemic model. Is it possible to correct government policy mismanagement starting at the end of July in 90 days for Madrid, Catalunya and a few other cities?" What do you think? Answers in an hour or so.

[2/n] For those that are new to this thread, you can prepare and hone your skills in modeling with the Harmless Virus Game:

[3/n] And the more difficult but also important for this new thread "The Vaccine Gamble" game:

[4/n] Here we go.. Let's start modeling Madrid, shall we? This is how we expect it to look like if we guide ourselves with the news. Lockdowns start, but young people will rebel to it causing a milder outcome.

[5/n] If the current course of action is maintained. They will have masks on, but at the same time, people are not enforcing them within their bubbles (like it happens in Buenos Aires). No freaking out when you have 50 deaths per day in Madrid.

[6/n] We showed before that Madrid is suboptimal against the vaccine gamble. But let's explain a few other features that a particular graph is telling us (which may not be evident at first sight).

[7/n] That means that no matter what you do if you didn't start optimal all the deaths you accrued are your new baseline. Future trajectories are tainted by your decisions (sound about like life). So we have a few 90-days options.

[8/n] Why do you think the green trajectory is so different between moderate and Sweden like restrictions to vulnerable?

[9/n] As you can see, all of the above. You need lesser interaction between the groups, less isolation on healthy would lead to faster spread on the healthy denying reservoirs.

[10/n] Trick question: Would any of the following optimum strategies be attainable in an ethical way without asking the healthy for help?

[11/n] Why is this question important? Mainly because the government has pushed Madrid into a situation where the only optimal strategies left are based on 'negative isolation' of the healthy. Has anyone said COVID-cruisers or COVID-parties were inherently bad? The counterexample

The problem is that to be able to equalize the scales the spreading pattern has to be so biased toward having a higher than native R0 for the healthy. That effectively is a non-solution. Do you think we could do it for 180 days?

[13/n] We can in 180, if and only if, the vulnerable are willing to sustain yet another 180 days of mitigations while all the rest do whatever they please. And even in that case is not guaranteed, because of fear healthy may not like to go out.

[14/n] How about Catalunya? It has sort of the same restrictions that Madrid had. Would they be able to pull it out?

[15/n] Interestingly enough, if you look closely the vaccine gamble is still a go until the end of October. Realistically, given the assumptions, it is still a no. They can't win, but at least they have a probable ethical area with an expected outcome that is not that bad.

[16/n] How about Stockholm? Can we beat "A Tegnell" somehow?

[17/n] Well if you think that you probably would require to mitigate until August 2021 and have a vaccine by then. Nahhh, I would claim that if our model is correct, he WON.

[18/n] Now this opens a few questions. If trajectories are so sensitive to what the government mandates. Shouldn't the government be liable for damages if their policies would harm a vulnerable which was expected to be very careful?

[19/n] Yes, it can be calculated. And more, the results don't look so good for the governments that decide to follow suboptimal paths if put on trial. We will talk about it someday. /END

TEASER...