Read on Twitter
Some people think now that we& #39;ve & #39;flattened the curve& #39;, it& #39;s time to open. If COVID-19 is bad for health, and lockdown is bad for the economy, shouldn& #39;t we open as much as we can keeping below hospital capacity?
Our working paper discusses why this is flawed thinking.
1/n https://twitter.com/Annayork91/status/1265313015689347076">https://twitter.com/Annayork9...
Our working paper discusses why this is flawed thinking.
1/n https://twitter.com/Annayork91/status/1265313015689347076">https://twitter.com/Annayork9...
You might have heard:
1. We need time to boost contact tracing capacity.
2. People won& #39;t go out if they& #39;re scared of getting sick.
I believe these reasons.
But let& #39;s say you& #39;re skeptical of contact tracing. You want to get out. We give another way to look at it.
2/n
1. We need time to boost contact tracing capacity.
2. People won& #39;t go out if they& #39;re scared of getting sick.
I believe these reasons.
But let& #39;s say you& #39;re skeptical of contact tracing. You want to get out. We give another way to look at it.
2/n
To keep cases below hospital capacity, we could:
1. Take Thor& #39;s hammer on the curve, let up, then #Stomp on the curve again.
2. Walk a #TightRope to keep cases *right* at the critical level.
Obviously #Stomp keeps disease lower. But would it make us happier?
3/n
1. Take Thor& #39;s hammer on the curve, let up, then #Stomp on the curve again.
2. Walk a #TightRope to keep cases *right* at the critical level.
Obviously #Stomp keeps disease lower. But would it make us happier?
3/n
We show that for a broad range of utility functions, #Stomp > #Tightrope.
COVID-19 grows (nearly) exponentially. This means that little changes in physical distancing have BIG impacts on COVID-19.
--> e.g. 2 months at 90% lockdown = ~7 months at 50% lockdown
4/n
COVID-19 grows (nearly) exponentially. This means that little changes in physical distancing have BIG impacts on COVID-19.
--> e.g. 2 months at 90% lockdown = ~7 months at 50% lockdown
4/n
If we pay a little more upfront for disease control, we get a *lot* more breathing room. This means that we can be much *more* open (or open for longer).
Our paper doesn& #39;t give a specific optimal policy. Rather we provide simple intuition **against** moderation. Strict intermittent policy feels weird. But with COVID-19 control, it may be better, not just for disease control but other outcomes too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/opinion/coronavirus-reopen.html
6/n">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/1...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/opinion/coronavirus-reopen.html
6/n">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/1...
Some nerdy notes: The more we thought about it, the harder it was to figure out the right utility function associated w/COVID-19 policies. We considered a range of options but would love thoughts and feedback (p.4 + Appendix G.1).
7/n
7/n
We were curious why optimal control papers often find smooth solutions -- we found the form of the optimal solution is sensitive both to the utility fxn and to if/how a latent period is included. (Appendix G). A reason to be mindful of the epi ( @EpiEllie, @johngraves9)!
8/n
8/n
Working paper is here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20107045v1.">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1... Feedback welcome! Code is in the document.
Authors are lifted alphabetically, but Scott Sheffield ( @MITMath) and Anna York ( @Annayork91)
did the heavy lifting with @n_swartwood, @a_williamson1,
@MeaganCFitz.
9/n
Authors are lifted alphabetically, but Scott Sheffield ( @MITMath) and Anna York ( @Annayork91)
did the heavy lifting with @n_swartwood, @a_williamson1,
@MeaganCFitz.
9/n
