Tuesday, 6 October 2020
quote [ Japan thus carried out a cluster-busting approach, including undertaking aggressive backward tracing to uncover clusters. Japan also focused on ventilation, counseling its population to avoid places where the three C’s come together—crowds in closed spaces in close contact, especially if there’s talking or singing—bringing together the science of overdispersion with the recognition of airborne aerosol transmission, as well as presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission. ]
|
mechavolt said @ 8:09pm GMT on 6th Oct
[Score:1 Underrated]
So for idiots like me, this took me a bit to wrap my head around.
Current paradigm, assumes anyone who is infected is a potential vector: I test positive. Tracing involves everyone I've come into contact with. Backtracking, assumes that super-spreaders are the vectors, and that most people don't spread the virus. I test positive. Tracing finds the specific individual who infected me. Then they trace THAT person's contacts to identify other potential infected. |
damnit said @ 4:20pm GMT on 7th Oct
We don't do that here because of lawsuits. That's probably why
|
mechavolt said[2] @ 9:34pm GMT on 7th Oct
If we already have the legal authority to contact trace an infected person, why would we not have the legal authority to contact trace a different infected person? As long as they voluntarily provide the information, there's no legal issue here at all.
The article is pretty clear that the problem isn't legality, it's that the media and policy makers are focused on the wrong metric. EDIT: I'd like to clarify that this isn't some conspiracy or anything. They're just treating this pandemic like the flu, which doesn't cluster the same way. |
The gist is that the reproduction number might not be the best metric for the spread, as it lags on clustered outbreaks and that instead of tracing current contacts, backtracking clusters seems a more efficient measure.