[infinity0]

> reduction in travel alone will not do much to stop the spread.

This is exactly what you can't conclude from the analysis that was done, the numbers matter significantly.

If a 99% restriction locally gives a 25% reduction globally, that tells us very little about what happens with a 99.99% restriction, which is probably closer to what has been achieved.

[jiofih]

That would have been nice. The real figure is more like -50% effective: https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/half-of-wuhans-population-fled...

[infinity0]

It's not. The model used historical figures from Jan 2017 as its input data, so would also be taking into account these New Year's mass-migrations. Also, this year's stopped at a relative early stage.

Sure, if you want to get precise, you can model a 0% reduction in traffic for the first 10 days, then a subsequent reduction to 99.99%. The numbers will be completely different than modelling a reduction to 99% for the whole period.

Quoting numerical estimates without understanding how the underlying model compares to reality, is just stupid.

[jiofih]

Are you replying to the wrong comment? The article I posted is about five million having left the city _before lockdown_, which completely invalidates any model.

[infinity0]

I am replying to the correct comment. Like I said, the model uses input data from Jan 2017, which will contain exactly this same migration as what you're currently discussing. This lockdown is strictly an improvement on the modelled situation. Read the paper describing the model, then come back and reply.