[mikedilger]

"Without fast case isolation after restrictions ease, modelling shows that the virus could spread exponentially and ultimately kill 100,000 Kiwis."

The left out the word "unreasonable". "Unresaonable modelling shows..."

See the Tailrisk analysis: http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/Corona.pdf

[Taniwha]

Yeah but the Tailrisk guy is not an epidemiologist, he's out of treasury and naturally has is more economy focused outlook.

One person's "unreasonable" can be another's "sensible caution"

[mikedilger]

You're right about that guy. So I'll be more specific. The model that shows large numbers like 14,400 (not even 100,000) presumes we do NO contact tracing at all (not just slower contact tracing). I'd wager most people would agree that is an unreasonable assumption.

[bandushrew]

That analysis is a perfectly good 'model', but it makes a few interesting/weird choices and assumptions of its own.

"The true burden of the epidemic can be calculated by applying an factor of around 0.15 to the number of account for life years lost. 500 deaths becomes, 75 on an adjusted basis, and can be compared with the 350 lives lost on the roads each year" - He means, of course, the true economic burden, which is a specifically different thing.

Putting that aside (although it clearly reflects his economic bias), actually implementing his model assumes that we can request the public to maintain a variety of distinct contact levels accurately, Im not convinced that we could expect the public to do that effectively over time.

His model is also extremely dependent on accurate testing and contact tracing, which grows exponentially harder as we increase the level of allowable contact.

His model is fine as far as models go, but it definitely makes the assumption that things like level of contact and contact tracing are as easy to adjust and manipulate as his normal treasury numbers, and I personally believe that is a fallacy.