
Simulating an epidemic [video] - karimf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs
======
wolfram74
The kind of mass testing and case tracking that's most effective is a
considerable (hopefully temporary) sacrifice to privacy rights, compared to
the sacrifice of movement rights necessary for social distancing.

The modeling is fairly clear that the tracking is a more effective public
health measure than the distancing, and the general public don't get as riled
up about erosions to privacy rights as other "realer" ones. It'll be
interesting to see what happens.

In the mean time we'll continue to have ineffective measures because I think a
lot of meat space businesses will have a kind of prisoner's dilemma going on.
If every company voluntarily isolates, the pandemic damage is minimized, but
the larger the percent of a given industry that isolates, the larger market
share is left for any company/individual that operates business as usual.

~~~
microcolonel
> _The kind of mass testing and case tracking that 's most effective is a
> considerable (hopefully temporary) sacrifice to privacy rights_

I mean, it doesn't really have to be. It's really no secret when you have
complications from this disease. Cautious quarantine is probably the
reasonable procedure for those who refuse to be tested or share their results.
It isn't a broad invasion of privacy, but a specific request for information.

> _If every company voluntarily isolates, the pandemic damage is minimized,
> but the larger the percent of a given industry that isolates, the larger
> market share is left for any company /individual that operates business as
> usual._

I don't think it's that simple. The damage of _the disease_ may be minimized
by that approach, for as long as you can sustain it (you can't forever), but
the overall damage, or even the mortality, isn't necessarily limited most
effectively by non-essential businesses remaining closed until we have a
vaccine or a very effective treatment.

------
chestervonwinch
I’m curious: Are these types of simulations (not these specifically, but those
run by trained epidemiologists) used to inform decisions at all? Can the
parameters of more refined simulations be optimized to minimize cumulative
fatalities, for example?

~~~
diroussel
Yes they are. These types of models have been studied for decades. For
instance the Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in the UK, models were used :

[https://www.ft.com/content/7e56cf84-6a9e-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcc...](https://www.ft.com/content/7e56cf84-6a9e-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75)

Or if that link doesn't work:
[https://www.google.com/?q=FT+Neil+Ferguson+a+virus+modeller+...](https://www.google.com/?q=FT+Neil+Ferguson+a+virus+modeller+sounds+the+alarm)

The article talks about the modeller Neil Fergusson, and in my next link it
talks about how he has advised the UK government:

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-
diseas...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/top-
government-adviser-self-isolates-developing-coronavirus/)

~~~
acqq
The analysis that is claimed (1) to have affected the change in the Covid-19
policy of the British government:

[https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-
college/medicine/s...](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-
college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-
modelling-16-03-2020.pdf)

is by Neil M Ferguson et al.

16 March 2020 Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: [https://doi.org/10.25561/77482](https://doi.org/10.25561/77482)

"Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19
mortality and healthcare demand"

In my opinion, the experts were aware of the problems in approach of many
governments, but the governments managed to do what they wanted (pretend
nothing is happening) for too long. Also in my opinion, the smaller players
believed too much to the most influential one, which has a specific history of
bluffing. That even works in social contexts, but, in the words of Richard
Feynman eventually:

"reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be
fooled."

1) E.g. The Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/new-data-
new-p...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/new-data-new-policy-
why-uks-coronavirus-strategy-has-changed)

------
jungletime
I don't see how this accounts for dots not becoming infectious after a set
time. If someone sits at home for two (max 4 weeks ) they're not infectious,
even if they had the disease. Does the simulation account for this? This
should put a damping effect to the spread.

~~~
madhadron
That's what the "recovered" block is. However they have to actually be
infected to join that block.

