Two under-discussed questions re: COVID
1/ First question: how much of the COVID epidemic in a country depends on its policies and the behavior of its citizens, and how much depends just on how concentrated was the virus in the country?
1/ First question: how much of the COVID epidemic in a country depends on its policies and the behavior of its citizens, and how much depends just on how concentrated was the virus in the country?
2/ For example, take two identical countries: same population, same climate, same culture, same policies. At the beginning of the pandemic, 100 COVID patients are parachuted in country A and 100k in country B. Clearly, country B will have many more cases.
3/ How much virus is in a country is a clear factor influencing the course of the pandemic inside it.
And yet, policies and outcomes are compared as if it didn't matter (example: Sweden got it easy, so Lombardy didn't have to go full lockdown – that's a fallacious argument)
And yet, policies and outcomes are compared as if it didn't matter (example: Sweden got it easy, so Lombardy didn't have to go full lockdown – that's a fallacious argument)
4/ Second question: how much of the Herd Immunity Threshold depends not just on the virus and our immune system, but on how the virus is distributed across cities of a country?
5/ For example, imagine a country made of two identical cities, A and B. City A has 80% of habitants infected. City B has 20%. The country would see the total number of infections slow down. It might therefore conclude that the HIT is 50% (the average of 20% and 80%).
However,
However,
6/ …however, the real threshold is 80%. The slowdown shows earlier just because of how cases are distributed.
7/ It seems to me that those two hypotheses are plausible and yet not discussed much.
If you know of reasons why they should be impossible, please let me know! Thank you.
If you know of reasons why they should be impossible, please let me know! Thank you.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
