Read on Twitter
This is not particularly encouraging, but worth your time to get an idea of some of the options out there. https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1248587310804930560">https://twitter.com/ezraklein...
1) National lockdown between 14 and 90 days (depending on whose plan you look at).
2) Digital surveillance state (contact tracing app on everyone& #39;s phones)
3) Massive ramp up in testing (at a scale we& #39;re not sure we can develop that number of tests, much less administer them)
2) Digital surveillance state (contact tracing app on everyone& #39;s phones)
3) Massive ramp up in testing (at a scale we& #39;re not sure we can develop that number of tests, much less administer them)
4) Everyone who tests positive (and the folks they& #39;ve been in contact with) quarantine for at least 14 days.
5) Likely anyone who is at high risk (elderly, immuno compromised) will stay have to stay in lockdown until we have a vaccine.
6) 18-24 months until vaccine.
5) Likely anyone who is at high risk (elderly, immuno compromised) will stay have to stay in lockdown until we have a vaccine.
6) 18-24 months until vaccine.
Note that there& #39;s fairly broad agreement in the different plans (lots of variation in the details, but most of the same elements), which span conservative, progressive, and university groups.
And all of the plans require a political lift that seems next to impossible in the United States.
I need to spend some time diving in to all these plans but, based on the overview, I don& #39;t see K-12 schools or colleges running in-person classes for the 2020-21 school year.
Hope I& #39;m wrong or am misinterpreting these plans.
Hope I& #39;m wrong or am misinterpreting these plans.
Anyone have any data on what percent of K-12 teachers and staff are over 60 and/or immuno-compromised? Same question for college professors and staff.
To open up, not only does it need to be "safe" for kids to be there, but you have to have enough staff to function.
To open up, not only does it need to be "safe" for kids to be there, but you have to have enough staff to function.
This is the "trigger" to start opening back up from the AEI (conservative) plan https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/national-coronavirus-response-a-road-map-to-reopening/,">https://www.aei.org/research-... probably the most "optimistic" of the plans.
Note that this includes massive ramp up of health care capability (both capacity and PPE), massive ramp up in testing, and mass digital surveillance.
And that& #39;s just to get to Phase II.
And that& #39;s just to get to Phase II.
Here are the conditions from the CAP (progressive) plan https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2020/04/03/482613/national-state-plan-end-coronavirus-crisis/">https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/he... to begin to open back up.
Note very similar massive ramp up in testing, health care capacity and PPE, and digital surveillance.
Note very similar massive ramp up in testing, health care capacity and PPE, and digital surveillance.
Also requires states to work together around large metro areas near borders and banning all mass gatherings of 50 or more (even after "opening up")
Also note that both the AEI and CAP plans are assuming pretty decent immunity once someone has been infected and recovers, which we hope is true, but still don& #39;t know for sure.
The SAFRA Center for Ethics (Harvard) plan looks at 3 types of responses: Freeze in Place, Mobilize and Transition, and Surrender (which is the "cure is worse than the disease" approach that appears to be the favorite of the President).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gf21eYeNWwrR9OO5nzxn1jlv-RTmHkt0/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g... (pdf)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gf21eYeNWwrR9OO5nzxn1jlv-RTmHkt0/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g... (pdf)
They advocate for the "Mobilize and Transition" approach, which is akin to a wartime mobilization (think WWII), treating "health security" as "national security"
