Dec. 13, 2020 Twitter thread from Yaneer Bar-Yam @yaneerbaryam who’s been been working on pandemic outbreaks for 15 years

A March 12, 2020 post is entitled: COVID-19 Recommendations for Policy Makers: One-page PDF overview by Chen Shen and Yaneer Bar-Yam, New England Complex Systems Institute, March 12, 2020

A recommendation that stands out from the above-noted post:

Careful and transparent communications that promote public engagement are necessary as their active involvement in their own safety is essential.

Some additional posts from March 2020 include:

It’s best to respond early and aggressively to COVID-19

March 21, 2020 CBC Second Opinion article notes mass COVID-19 testing is key to stopping spread

A more recent post is entitled:

Differences in COVID-19 infection rates depend on whether a given jurisdiction is, or is not, data-oriented

The above-noted post states a general principle; the thread from Yaneer Bar-Yam presents a detailed analysis of the distinction between the timely following of data as contrasted to the practice of not following data.

Click here for previous posts about COVID-19 >

THREAD from Yaneer Bar-Yam:

Yaneer Bar-Yam
@yaneerbaryam
*
I have been working on pandemic outbreaks for 15 years. There is a misunderstanding of the difference between the response in much of the West, versus successful countries (including New Zealand and Australia). Summarizing: 1.Reactive versus proactive and goal oriented. 1/-
*
*
2.Mitigation (slowing transmission) versus elimination (stopping transmission)
*
3.Gradually responding to increasing levels of infection by imposing greater restrictions which enables the infection rate to grow (red zone strategy), … 2/
versus starting with high restrictions to arrest transmission and relaxing restrictions only when the number of new cases is so low that contact tracing or localized short term action can stop community transmission (green zone strategy, including localized “fire fighting”). 3/
*
4.Trying to keep economic activity and travel as open as possible but perpetuating the economic harm and imposing yoyo restrictions, versus making an initial sacrifice of economic activity and travel in order to benefit from the rapid restoration of normal economic activity. 4/
*
5.Focusing attention on few individuals resistant to social action because of shortsightedness or selfishness, versus recognizing the vast majority do the right thing if given clear guidance and support, which is what matters for success, as elimination is a robust strategy. 5/
*
6.Incorrectly thinking that this is a steady state situation where balance between counter forces must be maintained versus a dynamic situation in which rapid action can shift conditions from a bad losing regime to a good winning one. 6/
*
7.Naive economic thinking of a tradeoff between economics and fighting the virus, versus realizing a short time economic hit will enable opening normally and restoring the economy (as recognized by McKinsey, BCG, IMF and other correct economic analyses). 7/
*
8.We have to “live with the virus” versus we can eliminate the virus and return to normal social and economic conditions. 8/
*
9.Waiting for high-tech vaccination to be a cure all, versus using right-tech classic pandemic isolation/quarantine of individuals and communities to completely stop transmission. 9/
*
10.Considering the virus as primarily a medical problem of treating individuals and individual responsibility for prevention of their own infection, versus… 10/
*
defeating the virus as a collective effort based in community action, galvanized by leaders providing clear information, a public health system engaging in community-based prevention of transmission, and the treatment of patients is, by design, as limited as possible. 11/
*
Unsuccessful versus Successful COVID Strategies 12/ png attached link to pdf endcoronavirus.org/papers/covid-s

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *