Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by oefrha 2285 days ago
I didn’t say most people, I said “abound”. Even 5% of people ignoring “asking nicely” could deal critical damage containment efforts, and I suspect the number is more than 5%.
2 comments

The Imperial College report[1] found suppression to be effective even with much less compliance. Here are the different measures they modeled and the assumed compliance, taken from the table on page 6 of the report and edited out the info about assumed impact on transmission, for brevity.

> Case isolation in the home — Assume 70% compliance — Symptomatic cases stay at home for 7 days. Household contacts remain unchanged.

> Voluntary home quarantine — Assume 50% compliance — Following identification of a symptomaticcase in the household, all household members remain at home for 14 days.

> Social distancing of those over 70 years of age — Assume 75% compliance

> Social distancing of entire population — Assume 75% reduced contact outside household, school or workplace (the wording here is different, does not mention "compliance")

> Closure of schools and universities — 100% of schools, 75% of universities

I would recommend reading the report. Unlike certain summaries, the report itself is very clear about all the assumptions baked in, and so you won't get a false sense of "This is 100% how it will be". (That said, I'm not questioning their numbers since I think they're likely more accurate than any I could come up with myself).

[1]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

I meant that most of the people who are not self-isolating are not jerks.

To convince them to participate in containment, their more responsible friends, family, and colleagues need to reach out, and more importantly we need to have consistent messaging from the government.