[chbot] Modelling virus spread...

[Mike Field]

What parts were dodgy?

When I read them the seemed pretty realistic given the data available at 
the time -R-naught of around 2.5 and somewhere between a 0.9% and 1.92% 
case fatality rate and assuming no effective pharmacological 
interventions. Pretty simple, with an uncontrolled transmission you have 
the >50% of people getting it and the associated fatalities, and even 
with controls things get pretty bad once the controls come off.

If others haven't read it yet I recommend you do: 
https://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/d/75/files/2017/01/Supression-and-Mitigation-Strategies-New-Zealand-TPM-1.pdf

There is plenty more water to go under the bridge.... maybe USA's 
"opening the economy back up" will provide a useful reference?

Mike

PS. I think everybody on the list should get a robo-coffee maker, so all 
those highly skilled but now unemployed baristas can go work on 
shovel-ready projects like building a covered Stadium for the local 
Rugby Union who can't pay for it? Surely pouring coffee is much like 
placing concrete?  Some of those Muffin Break scones are like bricks...  
(Poe's law applies to this comment)

On 10/05/2020 4:02 pm, Charles Manning wrote
> The modelling done by that NZ "centre for excellence" have been 
> appalling but, unfortunately, seem to be the ones the government used 
> the most.