Read on Twitter
Some people think now that we've 'flattened the curve', it's time to open. If COVID-19 is bad for health, and lockdown is bad for the economy, shouldn'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
Our working paper discusses why this is flawed thinking.
1/n https://twitter.com/Annayork91/status/1265313015689347076
You might have heard:
1. We need time to boost contact tracing capacity.
2. People won't go out if they're scared of getting sick.
I believe these reasons.
But let's say you'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't go out if they're scared of getting sick.
I believe these reasons.
But let's say you'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'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'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'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/2020/05/11/opinion/coronavirus-reopen.html
6/n
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. 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
One last note -- the appendix is technical. We tried to make it accessible. But we believe math communication is like public health communication: if reader doesn't get it, it's on you, not them. So if you read the appendices (bless you!) and have q's, reach out!
10/10
10/10