Grass roots ‘lockdown’
-
-
(Mean to call attention to the second tweet, but I can’t separate them for some reason)
-
Everybody was working from the office until CA instituted its lockdown orders at my 10000 person company. But I know lots of tech companies were ahead of the curve on that, and I did notice fewer cars on the road for the last couple weeks I was driving to the office.
-
We should taboo the word 'lockdown' because it is too vague and suggests some binary choice where societies either lockdown or don't.
Probably when its all said and done we'll find something really mundane and predictable like 'they imposed fewer restrictions and got more deaths'.
What will be interesting is to see if they get any economic advantage. I posted the estimates from the Swedish Central Bank but those are just estimates.
At first look it seems intuitive that if they impose fewer restrictions they'll have less economic disruption. On the other hand, a restaurant operating at 10% capacity might be no less bankrupt than the one operating at 0% capacity. So it's not obvious how things will net out.
-
@Horace said in Grass roots ‘lockdown’:
Everybody was working from the office until CA instituted its lockdown orders at my 10000 person company. But I know lots of tech companies were ahead of the curve on that, and I did notice fewer cars on the road for the last couple weeks I was driving to the office.
Today we were notified that employees able to do so productively, will be working from home for the "foreseeable future".
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Grass roots ‘lockdown’:
Today we were notified that employees able to do so productively, will be working from home for the "foreseeable future".
Who will set the record for Most Jobs held Productively From Home?
I think that when I was in my 30s and 40s I could easily have done the work of a few normal people. Now, I could have the opportunity to receive several salaries as long as I could make them all productive. I love meritocracy.
-
Horace - The data from a dozen countries is fairly consistent. Children under 10 have never been documented to pass it to an adult. Family documented transmission has always when investigated been the other way. Not yet proof, but relevant question to consider re:opening schools.
-
Dog to human? Not sure that was confirmed. Clearly it can given enough chances jump species, but pet-human transmission does not seem confirmed as a real risk. Either it jumped from a bat to a civet 20-50 years ago and then humans ate the wrong civet, or it went from a bat to a lab and then to a person who didn’t follow lab protocol. So it can jump species, but Rover and Fluffy don’t seem super risky based on current evidence.
My guess is that the virus spreads incredibly quickly but with low fatality. I believe that close to 20-25% of NYC residents have had the virus (per random antibody testing), but only a fraction of those were “sick” in the ordinary language sense of the word. This is why it overwhelms almost every political and economic system without a plan ahead of time. By the time it hits hospitals it has already spread widely.
-
The “children don’t give it to adults” theory is based on the observation that children don’t get very sick and don’t have much of a viral load to pass on when they infrequently do. The immune system of the young seems more adaptable to fighting the virus.
Spanish Flu was the opposite. Older people had some immunity and the young immune systems had to fight it for the first time.
-
Different aged people will have different immune systems with different learned abilities. The young will adapt quicker to new viruses the old will be more resistant to viruses that have been encountered before in the population. Humans have been fighting viruses for 2-3 million years.
-
@Jeffrey said in Grass roots ‘lockdown’:
My guess is that the virus spreads incredibly quickly but with low fatality. I believe that close to 20-25% of NYC residents have had the virus (per random antibody testing), but only a fraction of those were “sick” in the ordinary language sense of the word. This is why it overwhelms almost every political and economic system without a plan ahead of time. By the time it hits hospitals it has already spread widely.
If those numbers are accurate then the point at which hospitals become overwhelmed would be at or near the peak demand. We were imagining at the start of the outbreak that the system would break at some small fraction of what an unchecked virus progression would require. But at 25% of the population already having had it, you've seen the ballpark of the worst case scenario.
-
@Jeffrey said in Grass roots ‘lockdown’:
My guess is that the virus spreads incredibly quickly but with low fatality.
What would you consider 'low'?
Right now NYC has 19k deaths. If you take the recent antibody test as gospel, you've got 21% of the city that has been infected.
That would be an infection fatality rate of over 1%. (with case fatality rate exceeding 10%)
And even that would be a lower bound for two reasons - (1) the antibody test likely had selection bias issues, and (2) I base those numbers on the normal population of the city but many people have left.
-
