['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

In the same way Singapore was. A pause doesn't mean an end. And R0 below 2 prevents exponential growth and eventually that will yield a long-term decline provided that there is acquired immunity. It becomes 'de facto' social distancing. And with any set of numbers there will be peaks and valleys, but you don't need an R0 below zero for a negative trendline. Again, we've seen enormous declines in incidents of HIV/AIDS over the years, beginning most clearly in the early/mid 90s. Yet we've never had an R0 below 1 for it. It's declined because it was below 2 and inside those trends have been small peaks/valleys.



Sure, but that doesn't speak to the fact that within those specific test groups those peaks have been ripped backwards with little internal logic.



Sure - doesn't change the fact that the initial efforts were throwing darts at a wall and then drawing circles around them.

We've had plateaus for HIV/AIDS because treatment reduces infectiousness, condoms prevent transmission, and the R0 was based upon the virus itself unmitigated. When people are on antiretroviral therapy, use PrEP, or use condoms, the R0 drops.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The imperial model was a series of levels of compliance and the correlation was the same throughout - that flattening a curve pushed it out. So where's the logic there?

If you increase compliance you can reach a threshold where R0 can be reduced to the point where the epidemic cannot sustain itself. It's no different than other assumptions in medicine--a guy that watches his diet and takes his metformin as scheduled will have a lower A1C than someone that is only 50% compliant with their diet and medication.