View Single Post
  #17  
Old 03-23-2020, 01:00 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by joema View Post
A number of reasonable people have made that argument. The extreme economic cost of an economic shut down must be weighed against both moral *and* economic cost of possibly millions of people dying in the U.S.

The latest models show if it "played out" unhindered it might cause over 2 million American deaths. This does not include all the people that would die from heart attacks, etc. due to receiving inadequate treatment from a collapsed healthcare system. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...16-03-2020.pdf
Can you help me understand Table 3 in that paper?

Specifically, the last line.
R0=2.2, trigger is 3000 (cumulative ICU cases). It says that if we implement home isolation (CI), household quarantine (HQ), and social distancing of those over 60 (SDOL70), we can reduce reduce peak ICU bed demand by 49%.
It also shows that if we do that same 3 things, but additionally close schools and universities (PC), we will reduce peak bed demand by 24%.

Does this mean we will actually INCREASE peak bed demand by keeping students at home? Does that imply these students will spread the disease a lot more by being home?

The table also indicates that if we trigger on peak beds instead of deaths, adding PC will decrease peak bed demand, which is what I would expect.

Why would triggering on deaths rather than beds be worse?