Corona Game: A simulation of how Covid-19 spreads(koronahra.cz)
koronahra.cz
Corona Game: A simulation of how Covid-19 spreads
https://koronahra.cz/game
243 comments
Awesome work.
Astral Codex Ten (the reincarnated Slate Star Codex) has an informative article on the effectiveness of lockdowns that references and employs this simulation:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...
ETA: The post contains a graph of the frontier of pareto-efficient outcomes against which you might want to measure yourself when playing.
See also this blogpost by one of the epidemiologists working on the game: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
Astral Codex Ten (the reincarnated Slate Star Codex) has an informative article on the effectiveness of lockdowns that references and employs this simulation:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...
ETA: The post contains a graph of the frontier of pareto-efficient outcomes against which you might want to measure yourself when playing.
See also this blogpost by one of the epidemiologists working on the game: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
[game author here]
Note that I am Czech living in the US. Czech Republic and USA are the countries I follow most though I had discussions with other (mostly European expats).
Note on the "social stability score": the game population is by design very "permissive" people will generally not revolt even if you implement very harsh lockdowns of if many people die. This is because we primarily wanted to allow the player to explore the epidemiological model even for fairly extreme strategies (and public opinion is hard to model anyways). In addition, we expect that most player will play the game only once and we didn't want to frustrate too many new players by "game over" screens.
For context: here is how I see what was happening in Czechia. The spring 2020 was handled well and country avoided any significant surge in Covid cases. During summer 2020, people get used to the pandemic. New view got a significant traction: Covid is not that serious and the best course was to let it sweep through the population and gain natural herd immunity.
Since then, there was a constant tug of war between side wishing to relax the rules and the side wishing for stricter rules. Every time the disease started to decline, the "relax rules" side gained more traction and every time the hospitals were close to the capacity (or arguably above the capacity), the government implemented fairly strict measures (there was a strong consensus that everybody must be able to get healthcare).
This explains why the popular "zero covid" and "no intervention" strategies were never attempted. It is hard to tell how well our model works for these strategies. My guess is "not too poorly" but the we have much better confidence in the model in the regime much closer to real world behavior of the country.
Note on the "social stability score": the game population is by design very "permissive" people will generally not revolt even if you implement very harsh lockdowns of if many people die. This is because we primarily wanted to allow the player to explore the epidemiological model even for fairly extreme strategies (and public opinion is hard to model anyways). In addition, we expect that most player will play the game only once and we didn't want to frustrate too many new players by "game over" screens.
For context: here is how I see what was happening in Czechia. The spring 2020 was handled well and country avoided any significant surge in Covid cases. During summer 2020, people get used to the pandemic. New view got a significant traction: Covid is not that serious and the best course was to let it sweep through the population and gain natural herd immunity.
Since then, there was a constant tug of war between side wishing to relax the rules and the side wishing for stricter rules. Every time the disease started to decline, the "relax rules" side gained more traction and every time the hospitals were close to the capacity (or arguably above the capacity), the government implemented fairly strict measures (there was a strong consensus that everybody must be able to get healthcare).
This explains why the popular "zero covid" and "no intervention" strategies were never attempted. It is hard to tell how well our model works for these strategies. My guess is "not too poorly" but the we have much better confidence in the model in the regime much closer to real world behavior of the country.
Coolio! :)
I built something similar [0] a while ago. My goal was to _visually_ demonstrate how fast a virus can spread. I wanted to make it is easy for everyone to get an understanding about exponential growth and how different measures can have a great impact on the spread of a virus.
Disclaimer: This is an unpolished toy project. It was built in a weekend by simple dude who likes to code but has no idea about virology and epidemiology.
[0]: https://patricsteiner.github.io/corona-simulator/
Disclaimer: This is an unpolished toy project. It was built in a weekend by simple dude who likes to code but has no idea about virology and epidemiology.
[0]: https://patricsteiner.github.io/corona-simulator/
[game author here]
This forum is rate-limiting my posts so I am not able to respond to each particular thread.
I am guessing that the renewed interest in our game is coming from the recent post at Astral Codex Ten: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness... It is well worth reading that post.
Let me also link a post from one of our collaborators explaining how, for most countries, the dichotomy between saving lives and economy was somewhat false and relative to the real outcomes it was possible to improve both: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
A lot of the discussion on this forum center around the question what was the optimal policy and how well the game simulated that policy. In particular, there is a lot of discussion around the two "extreme" approaches: "zero covid" and "no interventions". That is fine, we had these discussions many times and we can explain how these approaches are represented in the game (in my opinion, not too unrealistically) but, at the same time, it somewhat misses the point. The game was about building intuition about simple epidemiological SEIR model close to the regime where the real country was operating - and for political reasons it was very unlikely that the country will radically change the course.
Lot of the game design decisions were some compromise between different goals of the game. Let me give an example: the team of authors of the game strongly believes that expanding contract tracing would a good thing. We were considering adding it to the game. However, what would be a point of adding that option to the game? It would further clutter UI (we had mobile users on mind). It would not add anything to the game because the decision to expand tracing would have no significant downside. And last it would hardly add anything to the public debate, it would just communicate that the authors of the game like contact tracing. There were already zillion of well argued opinion pieces on the topic. In fact, failures of contact tracing were more about failures of the specific agency than any conscious decision on the decision maker side. In short, tacking this issue in the game would quickly move from mathematical modeling into much more murky waters of public service efficiency.
You should also keep in mind that the game was just a small piece in a bigger mosaic of truly incredible efforts of many other volunteers. E.g. "Interdisplinary group for epidemic situations" https://www.meses.cz/. The game was never intended to provide comprehensive picture or recommendations.
I am guessing that the renewed interest in our game is coming from the recent post at Astral Codex Ten: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness... It is well worth reading that post.
Let me also link a post from one of our collaborators explaining how, for most countries, the dichotomy between saving lives and economy was somewhat false and relative to the real outcomes it was possible to improve both: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
A lot of the discussion on this forum center around the question what was the optimal policy and how well the game simulated that policy. In particular, there is a lot of discussion around the two "extreme" approaches: "zero covid" and "no interventions". That is fine, we had these discussions many times and we can explain how these approaches are represented in the game (in my opinion, not too unrealistically) but, at the same time, it somewhat misses the point. The game was about building intuition about simple epidemiological SEIR model close to the regime where the real country was operating - and for political reasons it was very unlikely that the country will radically change the course.
Lot of the game design decisions were some compromise between different goals of the game. Let me give an example: the team of authors of the game strongly believes that expanding contract tracing would a good thing. We were considering adding it to the game. However, what would be a point of adding that option to the game? It would further clutter UI (we had mobile users on mind). It would not add anything to the game because the decision to expand tracing would have no significant downside. And last it would hardly add anything to the public debate, it would just communicate that the authors of the game like contact tracing. There were already zillion of well argued opinion pieces on the topic. In fact, failures of contact tracing were more about failures of the specific agency than any conscious decision on the decision maker side. In short, tacking this issue in the game would quickly move from mathematical modeling into much more murky waters of public service efficiency.
You should also keep in mind that the game was just a small piece in a bigger mosaic of truly incredible efforts of many other volunteers. E.g. "Interdisplinary group for epidemic situations" https://www.meses.cz/. The game was never intended to provide comprehensive picture or recommendations.
> The game doesn't allow for zero covid strategy - because that was never realistically considered.
The game should model this because it is the only strategy that has been shown to be actually effective, and might make people realise how badly governments handled this.
The game should model this because it is the only strategy that has been shown to be actually effective, and might make people realise how badly governments handled this.
I think the point of the art is to show people how difficult it is to do the best you can with the tools available, and also to instruct them how to over-adjust with those tools and ease off them. To over-steer and then realign the direction of flight. What you're suggesting is: Give everyone an automatic transmission so no one ever shifts gears at the wrong time. What this game shows is: Here is how you shift gears before a curve, and what to expect if you shift too soon or too late. That is a fantastically more complicated and important thing to take away from a simulation than, "if we just turn everything on, problem solved."
> What you're suggesting is: Give everyone an automatic transmission so no one ever shifts gears at the wrong time. […]"if we just turn everything on, problem solved."
Not at all. A zero-covid strategy doesn't mean “Covid doesn't happen, nothing to do here”. It means locking down entire cities as soon as a few case of unknown origin are diagnosed, and doing so every time the situation occurs: it's not a one time medicine, you must be ready to to enact local lockdowns many times.
Australia, Vietnam, China, South Korea, etc. saved hundred thousands of lives by taking extreme measures super early on. Locking down 7 million people when 9 cases have been found is an extremely tough political decision to make, but it has been immensely successful (both from the health and economy point of view). The western world has been completely oblivious to this strategy since the beginning of the pandemic, and not allowing this kind of strategy in a game is just going to reinforce this idea that there is no alternative to the deadly “flatten the curve” strategy.
Not at all. A zero-covid strategy doesn't mean “Covid doesn't happen, nothing to do here”. It means locking down entire cities as soon as a few case of unknown origin are diagnosed, and doing so every time the situation occurs: it's not a one time medicine, you must be ready to to enact local lockdowns many times.
Australia, Vietnam, China, South Korea, etc. saved hundred thousands of lives by taking extreme measures super early on. Locking down 7 million people when 9 cases have been found is an extremely tough political decision to make, but it has been immensely successful (both from the health and economy point of view). The western world has been completely oblivious to this strategy since the beginning of the pandemic, and not allowing this kind of strategy in a game is just going to reinforce this idea that there is no alternative to the deadly “flatten the curve” strategy.
I agree with your basic view, and if I were a dictator with absolute power, that's exactly what I'd do. NZ and Australia are "the western world", but they happen to be sparsely populated islands. Vietnam and China are totalitarian dictatorships. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are to their credit more rational and law-abiding, but they've also struggled with surges after they thought they had a handle on it.
I was an advocate for full lockdown in the US two weeks before the government even acknowledged the problem. I was already in quarantine a week before they did, and we isolated on a farm for a year until we got both shots. But the reality is we're in a country where we can't even convince people to get the vaccine now, much less skip spring break.
I don't think it's sending a message that total lockdown isn't an option. In fact, it's an option in the game. Lockdown in EU countries was much more severe than it was in the US. And Czechia is a landlocked nation at the heart of Europe, so closing borders is a wild and drastic thing in that context... much more so than in NZ, for example, which has rightly been called the "bolt-hole of billionaires" for the apocalypse.
I agree that we could have stopped this in its tracks if we had locked down Seattle and New York completely at the end of 2/2020. But I suspect it would have ended up in rural Missouri eventually anyway. And once it's endemic and the only option is to flatten the curve, there's no point in a simulation of a scenario that had no basis in reality, and there's still a lot of value in teaching people what flattening the curve means: preemptively locking down and closing before things get astronomically out of hand.
I was an advocate for full lockdown in the US two weeks before the government even acknowledged the problem. I was already in quarantine a week before they did, and we isolated on a farm for a year until we got both shots. But the reality is we're in a country where we can't even convince people to get the vaccine now, much less skip spring break.
I don't think it's sending a message that total lockdown isn't an option. In fact, it's an option in the game. Lockdown in EU countries was much more severe than it was in the US. And Czechia is a landlocked nation at the heart of Europe, so closing borders is a wild and drastic thing in that context... much more so than in NZ, for example, which has rightly been called the "bolt-hole of billionaires" for the apocalypse.
I agree that we could have stopped this in its tracks if we had locked down Seattle and New York completely at the end of 2/2020. But I suspect it would have ended up in rural Missouri eventually anyway. And once it's endemic and the only option is to flatten the curve, there's no point in a simulation of a scenario that had no basis in reality, and there's still a lot of value in teaching people what flattening the curve means: preemptively locking down and closing before things get astronomically out of hand.
> Vietnam and China are totalitarian dictatorships. But the reality is we're in a country where we can't even convince people to get the vaccine now, much less skip spring break.
Not American so I can't judge about there, but in Europe, most countries closed restaurants and theaters for almost 6 months, schools for more than 3 months, people where submitted to curfews and harsh circulation restrictions (cannot go farther than 10km from your house without a justification and papers to prove so − in France for almost 4 month in total). and borders where closed for months (my brother in the UK couldn't practically come to France fro the 5 first months of this year). And people where sent to jail for not respecting those restrictions. It's not like the western world acted like “freedom-loving countries”, overall there were much more, and much longer freedom limitations in France, Italy and other European countries than there were in China.
The island vs continental countries is also a fallacy, there's been as many death in Cyprus and Malta (1.5M inhabitant together) than in NZ, Singapore, Vietnam and Taiwan grouped (more than 130M people living there). What's their excuse?
Not American so I can't judge about there, but in Europe, most countries closed restaurants and theaters for almost 6 months, schools for more than 3 months, people where submitted to curfews and harsh circulation restrictions (cannot go farther than 10km from your house without a justification and papers to prove so − in France for almost 4 month in total). and borders where closed for months (my brother in the UK couldn't practically come to France fro the 5 first months of this year). And people where sent to jail for not respecting those restrictions. It's not like the western world acted like “freedom-loving countries”, overall there were much more, and much longer freedom limitations in France, Italy and other European countries than there were in China.
The island vs continental countries is also a fallacy, there's been as many death in Cyprus and Malta (1.5M inhabitant together) than in NZ, Singapore, Vietnam and Taiwan grouped (more than 130M people living there). What's their excuse?
[deleted]
But you need one government that can lock everything down and control all borders easily. Controlling all borders would only have been viable on a EU level, but a unified strategy was and still is impossible.
This.
Hermetically closing borders would be very hard for Czech Republic (with strong economic and personal ties to the neighboring countries). There was political will to go for zero covid strategy anyways.
If I was allowed to go for some dream solution it would be coordinated strategy on EU (or Schengen) level.
Hermetically closing borders would be very hard for Czech Republic (with strong economic and personal ties to the neighboring countries). There was political will to go for zero covid strategy anyways.
If I was allowed to go for some dream solution it would be coordinated strategy on EU (or Schengen) level.
I very strongly second this. The zero COVID strategy with localized lockdowns and a high emphasis on tracing would have prevented millions of deaths worldwide.
BTW, source code is available here: https://github.com/swehq/corona-game
This is honestly great! Could you please add a license? I would love to translate this and deploy in other languages.
Please contact us at [email protected] . The game is "open source" but we didn't explicitly specify what exactly that means. I consider the owners of the code to be the company swehq.com that did most of the coding.
Wonderful, sparse, essential simulation. The stark choices and the resulting reminders of what really happened (and how the player matches up) is a great eye-opener for the general public. The fact that it forces you to make decisions in realtime and feel the lag behind them is really brilliant as a thing to put in front of decision-makers in parliament. One of the most difficult things with covid was the inability to see a few weeks into the future, because our minds are not equipped to think in terms of exponentially multiplying consequences. This gives a really elegant, intuitive form to a very conceptually difficult set of variables.
The beauty of the concept is its simplicity, as well. It's a bit like an IFR training panel, or early text-based video games. You can't see where the plane is or where it's going, you only see the instrument readouts after you adjust something. Since we have all been flying blind, this is a great experience to put in front of people, simply of what it's like to adjust and wait.
Five stars, sending it to all the devs I know, also as a way to make a very engaging sim on a complex topic for people with no prior art =D
The beauty of the concept is its simplicity, as well. It's a bit like an IFR training panel, or early text-based video games. You can't see where the plane is or where it's going, you only see the instrument readouts after you adjust something. Since we have all been flying blind, this is a great experience to put in front of people, simply of what it's like to adjust and wait.
Five stars, sending it to all the devs I know, also as a way to make a very engaging sim on a complex topic for people with no prior art =D
Moon Lander was fairly explicitly inspiration for this game :-)
This is really cool. I think it'd be interesting to model decarbonization in a similar manner, with social stability and debt and deaths.
This Covid-19 simulation, where you can have a more or less reliable model because you are basically doing it after the fact, already has enough potential for controversy - e.g. the "social stability" metric, is it too sensitive? Not sensitive enough? For decarbonization, where you don't have a reliable model, you will probably be accused by both sides that you're underestimating or overestimating the various parameters involved. Do you want to open this can of worms?
Well, we’ve got to! and it would be nice to open up the game to different assumptions. Like, I tried Covid zero in this game, and although I never got to zero it ended up minimizingz the deaths. Games like this can be useful for at least explaining ones ideas even if the games aren’t “realistic”.
I think for decarbonization, you wouldn’t need to take as drastic of steps is taken for Covid. But if your policies are unpopular, it will be a lot easier to lose political power as the timeline is ten times as long. It only takes slightly unpopular policies to be kicked out of power. So I think that aspect would help people who think we can do extreme measures for climate change (ie abandon most of the suburbs in a decade for denser urban cores more easily served by public transit) kind of temper their views a bit and think of more politically viable methods of fighting climate change (electric cars, etc). Of course it be nice to be able to modify the game to explain other arguments, like effects that redistribution might have making those changes more politically viable. But of course like most kinds of social science Model, it’s really more of an explanation/exposition than a prediction
I think for decarbonization, you wouldn’t need to take as drastic of steps is taken for Covid. But if your policies are unpopular, it will be a lot easier to lose political power as the timeline is ten times as long. It only takes slightly unpopular policies to be kicked out of power. So I think that aspect would help people who think we can do extreme measures for climate change (ie abandon most of the suburbs in a decade for denser urban cores more easily served by public transit) kind of temper their views a bit and think of more politically viable methods of fighting climate change (electric cars, etc). Of course it be nice to be able to modify the game to explain other arguments, like effects that redistribution might have making those changes more politically viable. But of course like most kinds of social science Model, it’s really more of an explanation/exposition than a prediction
Well, it would be a game or simulation after all. It could be improved over time with new knowledge. So it wouldn't hurt to try.
Meta question to the author about the spread of information: you registered your account a few hours ago apparently to post answers here, how did you know that your game was on HN?
I'm going to guess that the author checked where their site visitors were coming from.
Pointed out by a good friend :)
I'm not sure how to feel about this simulation... I basically did nothing and burned through COVID within 3 months and things went back to normal by mid-summer. By the end of the year, despite mid-summer government confidence being terrible, I was told "The people trust the government" with a 70% approval. I mean I killed what 10% of the country, but hey... the people have short memories!
What is this supposed to be teaching exactly?
If the model is correct then I think a lot of people would say we should have just let the disease burn out and deal with the deaths. I'm not sure that's what the designers intended.
What is this supposed to be teaching exactly?
If the model is correct then I think a lot of people would say we should have just let the disease burn out and deal with the deaths. I'm not sure that's what the designers intended.
I'm not sure it wouldn't have worked. Sweden had something like 80% support to only have event limits at 500 and no other restrictions, with people arguing in public forums that those dying deserved it and that it was worth it.
I had a doctor outright scold me for wearing a mask to the hospital here (checkup for crohns disease which I take immunosupressants for) and didnt see a single other mask in the hospital until December 2020. o.O.
Smaller countries with limited access to the wider discussions in English can turn very weird.
I had a doctor outright scold me for wearing a mask to the hospital here (checkup for crohns disease which I take immunosupressants for) and didnt see a single other mask in the hospital until December 2020. o.O.
Smaller countries with limited access to the wider discussions in English can turn very weird.
>> I was told "The people trust the government" with a 70% approval. I mean I killed what 10% of the country, but hey... the people have short memories!
> Sweden had something like 80% support to only have event limits at 500 and no other restrictions
But even now Sweden has 0.15% of the population killed by covid-19, that is like 100 times smaller than the 10% that the GP got in the simulation.
> Sweden had something like 80% support to only have event limits at 500 and no other restrictions
But even now Sweden has 0.15% of the population killed by covid-19, that is like 100 times smaller than the 10% that the GP got in the simulation.
Also note that as of right now, Sweden has half the number of deaths/capita compared to Czechia, and is below the EU average, despite having had the least restrictive policy.
This game perpetuates the gigantic fallacy that government intervention is the biggest factor determining spread and outcome, when in reality it's geography, structural differences, and enormous amounts of luck.
This game perpetuates the gigantic fallacy that government intervention is the biggest factor determining spread and outcome, when in reality it's geography, structural differences, and enormous amounts of luck.
> Sweden has half the number of deaths/capita compared to Czechia
> when in reality it's geography, structural differences,
Why did you cherry pick Czechia when you have neighbouring countries which are much more comparable in term of climate, culture, geography, density, &c.
Finland: 176 deaths per 1m hab
Norway: 146 deaths per 1m hab
Sweden: 1437 deaths per 1m hab
> when in reality it's geography, structural differences,
Why did you cherry pick Czechia when you have neighbouring countries which are much more comparable in term of climate, culture, geography, density, &c.
Finland: 176 deaths per 1m hab
Norway: 146 deaths per 1m hab
Sweden: 1437 deaths per 1m hab
I would also say it's cultural. Swedes keep a distance without you telling them, Spaniards do not.
Those sorts of explanations are all totally ad-hoc and have no real scientific validity. The English are famously stand-offish yet have worse results than Sweden. Texas and Florida are culturally very similar to other parts of the USA, yet unlocked without experiencing any change in their situation whatsoever and have seen similar results to other US states.
You can find counter-examples like that for more or less any posited influential factor on COVID outcomes, except for obesity. Government interventions in particular don't correlate well with anything. The models are all built on the assumptions that they should have a huge impact, but real data tells us differently - the assumptions the models are built on are unsound.
IMHO it's really a pity the game authors used this to influence the Czech parliament. These models were never validated against reality before being thrown at policymakers, instead the (sad to call them this) "scientists" simply assumed that because the underlying theories are simple they must therefore also be correct. I've had actual scientists tell me "of course lockdown works, it's basic germ theory" which demonstrates a pretty chaotic confusion between theory and reality, but that sort of attitude can be found everywhere in the academic modelling world.
You can find counter-examples like that for more or less any posited influential factor on COVID outcomes, except for obesity. Government interventions in particular don't correlate well with anything. The models are all built on the assumptions that they should have a huge impact, but real data tells us differently - the assumptions the models are built on are unsound.
IMHO it's really a pity the game authors used this to influence the Czech parliament. These models were never validated against reality before being thrown at policymakers, instead the (sad to call them this) "scientists" simply assumed that because the underlying theories are simple they must therefore also be correct. I've had actual scientists tell me "of course lockdown works, it's basic germ theory" which demonstrates a pretty chaotic confusion between theory and reality, but that sort of attitude can be found everywhere in the academic modelling world.
> IMHO it's really a pity the game authors used this to influence the Czech parliament.
Remember that politicians are in the tradeoff and bullshit business. They assume every they are told is bullshit, they repackage it and than sell it to us. My guess is if they don't like what the scientist and economist say, they just get another group they like more. It's probably a mix of the advice they get, with the tradeoff they want to make.
> "of course lockdown works"
Of course they work! The question is how much it affect the transmission ratio and the economic cost, and if people will follow the restrictions.
I like that this was call the "Corona Game" and not the "Corona Simulator". Some people noticed that in this game "doing nothing" does not drop the popularity to 0, and I think that it's very unrealistic. Other people noticed that closing the schools has a big effect in the game, but the different parts of the government here in Argentina disagree https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27783454
Remember that politicians are in the tradeoff and bullshit business. They assume every they are told is bullshit, they repackage it and than sell it to us. My guess is if they don't like what the scientist and economist say, they just get another group they like more. It's probably a mix of the advice they get, with the tradeoff they want to make.
> "of course lockdown works"
Of course they work! The question is how much it affect the transmission ratio and the economic cost, and if people will follow the restrictions.
I like that this was call the "Corona Game" and not the "Corona Simulator". Some people noticed that in this game "doing nothing" does not drop the popularity to 0, and I think that it's very unrealistic. Other people noticed that closing the schools has a big effect in the game, but the different parts of the government here in Argentina disagree https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27783454
Of course they work!
Why do you say this when there are many analyses saying they don't have any impact. At any rate that doesn't really need studies, because places that either didn't lock down, or did and then entirely removed restrictions (like Florida, Texas), did not see any large clearly artificial jump in case numbers. And yet suppressing such spikes was the sole justification for lockdowns.
That's why, when investigated, all claims I've seen that lockdowns work are either mis-analysis of the data (Flaxman et al and friends), or, justified on theoretical grounds like "of course they work, theory says they work".
Why do you say this when there are many analyses saying they don't have any impact. At any rate that doesn't really need studies, because places that either didn't lock down, or did and then entirely removed restrictions (like Florida, Texas), did not see any large clearly artificial jump in case numbers. And yet suppressing such spikes was the sole justification for lockdowns.
That's why, when investigated, all claims I've seen that lockdowns work are either mis-analysis of the data (Flaxman et al and friends), or, justified on theoretical grounds like "of course they work, theory says they work".
Perhaps lockdowns are overrated, I think nobody knows for sure the correct weight of it, but I'd be really surprised that it has absolute zero effect.
It also depend on other factors. I guess most people in Florida and Texas move in their own car. Here in Argentina most people use public transport.
For example in normal times I have once a week to commute from one building of the university to another building that is like 7 miles away. I can take a bus, the trip is 90 minutes, and at rush hours it has like 100-150 persons.
I can also make the middle part of the trip using the underground/metro, so I pass under the mess of transit in downtown and the trip is only 45 minutes long. Now I have like 150+150+150=450 new friends to share the air. (And the underground/metro cars are bigger and more crowed, so perhaps it reach 200 and the total is 500.)
Many persons here in normal times must do similar or longer trips everyday, twice per day at rush hour. (Perhaps bus+train+bus, or bus+train+undergroung and the can't skip the train because they live too far away.)
(And the same morons that open in summer the window because the air conditioner is not cold enough, will close the window in winter because the wind is too cold.)
So in different places, a lockdown may have very different effects.
It also depend on other factors. I guess most people in Florida and Texas move in their own car. Here in Argentina most people use public transport.
For example in normal times I have once a week to commute from one building of the university to another building that is like 7 miles away. I can take a bus, the trip is 90 minutes, and at rush hours it has like 100-150 persons.
I can also make the middle part of the trip using the underground/metro, so I pass under the mess of transit in downtown and the trip is only 45 minutes long. Now I have like 150+150+150=450 new friends to share the air. (And the underground/metro cars are bigger and more crowed, so perhaps it reach 200 and the total is 500.)
Many persons here in normal times must do similar or longer trips everyday, twice per day at rush hour. (Perhaps bus+train+bus, or bus+train+undergroung and the can't skip the train because they live too far away.)
(And the same morons that open in summer the window because the air conditioner is not cold enough, will close the window in winter because the wind is too cold.)
So in different places, a lockdown may have very different effects.
I agree it's really surprising that they have no effect. Yet that is what the data seems to be telling us, and it's not specific to certain regions. The number of places is limited because the number of places that got rid of or didn't implement lockdowns is limited, but the story is consistent between them, including in Sweden where they also use public transport.
I believe the fact that this invalidates what was seen as robust theory is one reason (but not the biggest reason) why people are resistant to that conclusion. Yet, that is what the data demands of us.
In reality there are lots of ways to patch up germ theory to handle the ineffectiveness of lockdowns. For instance, contact tracing studies claim that almost all infections are spread in homes, care homes and hospitals, i.e. places where sick people have to be. That makes logical sense: you would expect viruses to spread in places where sick people are, and you would expect sick people to be in a bed somewhere because they feel sick. The idea that lockdowns work is strongly predicated on the belief that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people are highly infectious. However there's actually very little evidence of this, and quite a lot of evidence that they're not.
I believe the fact that this invalidates what was seen as robust theory is one reason (but not the biggest reason) why people are resistant to that conclusion. Yet, that is what the data demands of us.
In reality there are lots of ways to patch up germ theory to handle the ineffectiveness of lockdowns. For instance, contact tracing studies claim that almost all infections are spread in homes, care homes and hospitals, i.e. places where sick people have to be. That makes logical sense: you would expect viruses to spread in places where sick people are, and you would expect sick people to be in a bed somewhere because they feel sick. The idea that lockdowns work is strongly predicated on the belief that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people are highly infectious. However there's actually very little evidence of this, and quite a lot of evidence that they're not.
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for continuing this thread, I agree with pretty much everything you said.
Lockdowns simply don't work, because a functioning society where people don't starve to death requires massive amounts of "essential" workers who have to be exempt from the lockdown rules. But a lot of people seem to think Uber Eats is run by an army of small elves or something...
Lockdowns simply don't work, because a functioning society where people don't starve to death requires massive amounts of "essential" workers who have to be exempt from the lockdown rules. But a lot of people seem to think Uber Eats is run by an army of small elves or something...
The biggest difference between Sweden an Spain is the presence of multi generational households in the latter.
That's a good point, too.
> I had a doctor outright scold me for wearing a mask to the hospital here
This is HIGHLY irregular. Right before the 2020 summer all Swedish hospitals started with corona security measures: you could not enter the hospital before talking to someone (in full protective gear) and at the very least having your temperature measured. If you were allowed inside and masks were available you would be required to wear one.
Source: visited hospitals and care centres multiple times with sick family members.
This is HIGHLY irregular. Right before the 2020 summer all Swedish hospitals started with corona security measures: you could not enter the hospital before talking to someone (in full protective gear) and at the very least having your temperature measured. If you were allowed inside and masks were available you would be required to wear one.
Source: visited hospitals and care centres multiple times with sick family members.
> with people arguing in public forums that those dying deserved it and that it was worth it.
I would be very surprised if anyone actually argued that.
I would be very surprised if anyone actually argued that.
If the two metrics used are loss of life vs cost of pandemic, the cost of a life needs to be included in the final score I think.
In Australia, it appears some early models predicted between 50k to 150k lives lost assuming no response. A statistical life is valued at over $4m, meaning a cost of $200bn to $600bn. Also, with 60% of the population infected, that would mean over 12 million people infected - we still don't have a good idea what the long-term issues will be - but one study in Australia found ~5% of people experiencing "long covid" symptoms, which would mean at least 600,000 people with long-term complications - which in our hypothetical Harkonnen society we'd likely just shove them into a hole somewhere and forget about them, otherwise we'd have to deal with their social welfare (yuck!) and strain on the health system.
No doubt the cost, responses, short and long term impacts, etc, will be something economists and sociologists will debate for decades to come.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/thousands-of-predict...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Australia
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-24/long-covid-nsw-resear...
Edit: On thinking about it, I think the value of life is based on insurance / compensation purposes, perhaps the value of a life in terms of total GDP contribution would be different? Anyway, a subject more for the actuaries and economists I think. Interesting to consider nonetheless, which I think may be the overall point of this game.
In Australia, it appears some early models predicted between 50k to 150k lives lost assuming no response. A statistical life is valued at over $4m, meaning a cost of $200bn to $600bn. Also, with 60% of the population infected, that would mean over 12 million people infected - we still don't have a good idea what the long-term issues will be - but one study in Australia found ~5% of people experiencing "long covid" symptoms, which would mean at least 600,000 people with long-term complications - which in our hypothetical Harkonnen society we'd likely just shove them into a hole somewhere and forget about them, otherwise we'd have to deal with their social welfare (yuck!) and strain on the health system.
No doubt the cost, responses, short and long term impacts, etc, will be something economists and sociologists will debate for decades to come.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/thousands-of-predict...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Australia
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-24/long-covid-nsw-resear...
Edit: On thinking about it, I think the value of life is based on insurance / compensation purposes, perhaps the value of a life in terms of total GDP contribution would be different? Anyway, a subject more for the actuaries and economists I think. Interesting to consider nonetheless, which I think may be the overall point of this game.
>In Australia, it appears some early models predicted between 50k to 150k lives lost assuming no response. A statistical life is valued at over $4m, meaning a cost of $200bn to $600bn.
That is the value of an "average" life. But the average age of death from covid is over 75, so the actual economic cost would be much less (which is accounted for when using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year, the standard way of measuring these things).
That is the value of an "average" life. But the average age of death from covid is over 75, so the actual economic cost would be much less (which is accounted for when using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year, the standard way of measuring these things).
There's a write up here[0] that in part attempts to compare QALY's lost to strong lockdown vs light lockdown. References this game in fact.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...
> This paper finds that the average COVID victim might have lived another 8 QALYs (quality-adjusted life years - a measure of years of life saved, in which years when you are very sick and can’t do anything count as less than a full year) if they hadn’t gotten COVID.
I take issue with this.
The average age in the UK of death was 83 I think, compared to an average life expectancy of 82. Most had more than one comorbidity. Do we really expected these people to live until 90?
In addition to this a lot of the early deaths were in care homes were the residents aren't expected to live 8 years (less than 3 years from a very quick search). That would mean that non care home residents would need to average an ever higher amount of life for that to be true.
Sorry, that seems kind of ridiculous.
I take issue with this.
The average age in the UK of death was 83 I think, compared to an average life expectancy of 82. Most had more than one comorbidity. Do we really expected these people to live until 90?
In addition to this a lot of the early deaths were in care homes were the residents aren't expected to live 8 years (less than 3 years from a very quick search). That would mean that non care home residents would need to average an ever higher amount of life for that to be true.
Sorry, that seems kind of ridiculous.
The life expectancy of people that die at 82 doesn't count against them like that. Glancing at a UK life table, life expectancy at age 83 is 7 years for men and 8 years for women.
Throw in the youngers and it is clear enough the math should work out fine.
Throw in the youngers and it is clear enough the math should work out fine.
An average includes "youngers".
The expected life expectancy you give isn't for people with an average of two comorbidities.
The expected life expectancy you give isn't for people with an average of two comorbidities.
In our thought experiment, the younger people all have more years of life expectancy than the older people.
I was thinking that the average age of death would have that effect but I wasn't sure what it was called, so I appreciate the pointer to QALYs. Your point is well taken that the total economic cost can't be based on an 'average' life given the typical demographics impacted by the pandemic.
[game author here]
Worst case scenario in the game is ~1.5% of the population. The estimated fatality rate is 0.5%. This number is increased to 1% if the hospitals are overwhelmed (note that there was a strong consensus in the country that this needs to be avoided).
Note that only 1/4 of the infections get detected in the game the game so the ratio deaths/detected infections will be 4% (the deaths/actual infections is 1%) - likely too optimistic in the scenario of overwhelmed testing capacity.
If you do nothing in the game, you kill 1% of the population during the first wave and you kill another ~0.5% in winter after the natural immunity of some people expires. Again, the real country was simply not willing to go that far.
Note that only 1/4 of the infections get detected in the game the game so the ratio deaths/detected infections will be 4% (the deaths/actual infections is 1%) - likely too optimistic in the scenario of overwhelmed testing capacity.
If you do nothing in the game, you kill 1% of the population during the first wave and you kill another ~0.5% in winter after the natural immunity of some people expires. Again, the real country was simply not willing to go that far.
Well if you manged to kill 10% of the country then it is completely inaccurate. The maximum CSF I have seen estimated for coronavirus is 3% and I have a feeling that is quite an overestimation.
Well, letting the thing burn is actually the fastest way to end the pandemic. The only thing faster than that would be additional intentional spreading (covid parties?) and/or vaccinations going on at the same time. This applies to any pandemic really, as long as the disease leaves some immunity. It's epidemiology 101, for example the SIR model flatlines when the R gets to the herd immunity level.
But do you want the other [than pandemic ending] consequences? Like in your game-based example, 10% of the population dead?
But do you want the other [than pandemic ending] consequences? Like in your game-based example, 10% of the population dead?
If you have healthy, low-risk people intentionally get the disease (from a single variant which you keep in good stock) and then strictly isolate/quarantine until they get better, that'd be a potential strategy. It's probably the best way to get overall immunity high enough that COVID would burn out...
...of course, this is basically the same as a super crappy vaccine. Vaccination would be way better. But back when people were poo-pooing the possibility of a fast vaccine development, it almost felt tempting to just do this and get it over with.
Because the virus wouldn't be spreading beyond the host that got it, the risk of mutation would be small.
(IMHO, we should've just massively accelerated vaccine development... even just a couple months would've saved lots of lives. If you're willing to try the strategy in my post, then accelerating vaccine approval would probably be no worse morally and probably a lot better.)
Because the virus wouldn't be spreading beyond the host that got it, the risk of mutation would be small.
(IMHO, we should've just massively accelerated vaccine development... even just a couple months would've saved lots of lives. If you're willing to try the strategy in my post, then accelerating vaccine approval would probably be no worse morally and probably a lot better.)
Is it? Places with little forced mitigation like Brazil are still having waves. Some portion of the populace will be cautious and take precautions, and transient herd immunity within networks of people out and about will prevent some less cautious people from getting it during a given wave.
To truly burn it out in real world conditions you’d need to actively infect people.
To truly burn it out in real world conditions you’d need to actively infect people.
Biochemist here. No it is not, and that's not epi-101. By letting it rip you're not just maximizing your fatalities, but you're also maximizing the rate at which the thing mutates, which maximizes the probability that your "recovered" pool becomes vulnerable again.
>but you're also maximizing the rate at which the thing mutates
No country is a closed system. We see now that a previous immune response is better than nothing against the Delta variant. I'm wondering what will happen to the island nations that kept the virus at bay while not having a high vaccination rate, won't they have many more deaths now with the more infectious and more deadly version that other countries that "let it rip" like Sweden have at least partial widespread immunity to?
No country is a closed system. We see now that a previous immune response is better than nothing against the Delta variant. I'm wondering what will happen to the island nations that kept the virus at bay while not having a high vaccination rate, won't they have many more deaths now with the more infectious and more deadly version that other countries that "let it rip" like Sweden have at least partial widespread immunity to?
True. But suppose you had no vaccines, then roughly the same mutations will play out whether the epidemic lasts a week or a year.
(Also, what the sibling wrote)
(Also, what the sibling wrote)
Yeah I killed 111k people immediately and then it flatlined, I was a little surprised. Then again, I killed 111k people.. my second time I did what I thought we (the US) should do with a full lockdown and killed like 50 total.
Depends when you do it. Obviously if you go full Madagascar at the first sign of trouble, you’ll crush it, but it’d pretty absurd behavior (every false flag would trigger lockdown).
I waited a little by accident and then went full lockdown and got a total of 130k deaths
I waited a little by accident and then went full lockdown and got a total of 130k deaths
Even in a worst case scenario it would be impossible to kill 10% of the country. The worldwide infection fatality rate is under 1%. That would rise a little of the healthcare system was overwhelmed but getting to 10% isn't remotely plausible.
It would rise a LOT if health care gets overwhelmed, as we saw in Italy.
And it’s not just COVID… if the hospitals are overrun many other things will have much higher mortality, like trauma cases.
And it’s not just COVID… if the hospitals are overrun many other things will have much higher mortality, like trauma cases.
None of that gets you even close to 10% mortality. In any given year only a tiny fraction of the population needs advanced hospital care to survive trauma or other diseases.
IIRC Lombardy death rate reached 17% once hospitals were overwhelmed.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
You do not recall correctly. You have confused case fatality rate with infection fatality rate. There are a large number of infections which are never officially counted as cases due to limited testing and minimal symptoms.
Well, with that line of reasoning we cannot trust any corona statistics, can we?
Anyway, the effect of failing to "fallten the curve" in Lombardy are well documented. And this happened in December 2019 before we had a global pandemic.
Anyway, the effect of failing to "fallten the curve" in Lombardy are well documented. And this happened in December 2019 before we had a global pandemic.
Trust has nothing to do with it. Based on seroprevalence studies and other factors the CDC has estimated that only about a quarter of infections were officially counted as "cases". The undercounting was even worse early in the pandemic when tests were hardly available. So your point is not valid.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
But that's US statistics, this happened in asmall area in Northern Italy.
Even if we go with your numbers, we get an average of 4-5% and since we know there was a huge spike in the middle of the outbreak it is not unrealistic to assume they were above 10% at some point.
Even if we go with your numbers, we get an average of 4-5% and since we know there was a huge spike in the middle of the outbreak it is not unrealistic to assume they were above 10% at some point.
[deleted]
It is impossible to kill 10% of the country in the game as well. (Czechia has population 10M, not 1M)
That's 1% with fully functioning ICUs and other stuff. You can _easily_ reach 10% fatlity if the hospitals are overwhelmed.
This happened for a short time in tiny part of Italy and the death rate skyrocketed.
This happened for a short time in tiny part of Italy and the death rate skyrocketed.
Less than 7% of official COVID cases require hospital care. It is not possible to reach 10% mortality at the population level even with 100% infection rate.
I played the game by restricting everything except a full lockdown and by doing nothing. The first time I had less than 200 deaths, the second time almost 150 k. The government survived in both cases, actually a little better in the latter. I'm not surprised because I don't remember a single government having to resign because of covid, even where the pandemic hit hard. Somebody had lost elections but it's difficult to assess the impact of covid mismanagement of the outcome of any election.
I doubt this - it is impossible to kill 10% of the population in the game. As anyone can see on the final screen, max number of deaths in the game is about 150000, which is 1.5% (Czechia population is approximately 10M)
Wow, the author, Michal Beneš, was my colleague at the Mathematical-Physical Faculty. We were (well, I hope I can say are) on good terms. He later specialized in analysis, I in algebra.
A funny fellow with a knack for understanding society at large.
A funny fellow with a knack for understanding society at large.
Hi :) Nice to meet you here. I do appreciate your work on free speech issues! Michal
I got a little annoyed I couldn't just go hard initially and eradicate the virus like Aus/NZ do whenever theres an outbreak(NSW being a notable outlier but not quibbling). No Matter how strict I was initially, there were still at least 5 cases a day...
Why is there no option to have Contact Tracing & QR Codes? Even initially in the pandemic that's how Taiwan got on top of it. Why can't we do mass testing & localised lockdowns?
I know it's a game, but I feel like the USA/Europe don't even really consider the measures in place that have had the most impact on curbing the spread in places that went for elimination.
Why is there no option to have Contact Tracing & QR Codes? Even initially in the pandemic that's how Taiwan got on top of it. Why can't we do mass testing & localised lockdowns?
I know it's a game, but I feel like the USA/Europe don't even really consider the measures in place that have had the most impact on curbing the spread in places that went for elimination.
[game author here] Politically, eradication was never a real option in Czechia.
Improved contact tracing and testing is something we and the experts we worked with strongly supported. And we did consider adding them to the game. At the end, these features ended on the "cutting floor". We felt these features would a) be complicating the game too much b) they would lead to an optimal strategy too far away from what the the real country was doing. Unfortunately, real Czechia didn't use summer and fall 2020 to implement these "smart measures". In winter 2020/2021 only crude restrictive measures were available to manage the incoming virus surge.
Improved contact tracing and testing is something we and the experts we worked with strongly supported. And we did consider adding them to the game. At the end, these features ended on the "cutting floor". We felt these features would a) be complicating the game too much b) they would lead to an optimal strategy too far away from what the the real country was doing. Unfortunately, real Czechia didn't use summer and fall 2020 to implement these "smart measures". In winter 2020/2021 only crude restrictive measures were available to manage the incoming virus surge.
Nor was it politically an option in Aus, kinda. They’ve gone to great lengths to avoid using the words eradication and elimination, but Melbourne/Victoria got to zero cases late 2020 and released the lockdown and everyone had a great summer. Except for a couple of scares. The trick was to show people what life could be like with zero after it had been taken away for so long, and now everyone in this city gets it. All of the other states except apparently NSW learned the lesson from afar.
I think you’re right that the ability to pull off zero (as opposed to 10-20/day) rests squarely on the availability of extremely competent and fast testing and tracing. It’s either that or unacceptably draconian measures. Scaling up contact tracing capability To that level in Victoria took months because it’s really hard, so if you don’t see the slow movement on that front, it’s easy to see zero cases as a political impossibility. Maybe that’s what’s going on in NSW right now, alongside people getting used to the strictness necessary to make it work.
You obviously get how these things interact since you built the game mechanics simulating public trust in government in response to measures. It’s no different from the rest of them, it just only works at the small end of the log scale. And to get to the small end and make zero cases an option you have to play the rest of the game like a champ.
Endgame for Victoria is that our leader, who according to large swathes of Australian media is basically a dictator, is probably getting re-elected by a significant margin. There should be a button for answering 90 minutes of press questions live on TV every day for 4 months straight.
I think you’re right that the ability to pull off zero (as opposed to 10-20/day) rests squarely on the availability of extremely competent and fast testing and tracing. It’s either that or unacceptably draconian measures. Scaling up contact tracing capability To that level in Victoria took months because it’s really hard, so if you don’t see the slow movement on that front, it’s easy to see zero cases as a political impossibility. Maybe that’s what’s going on in NSW right now, alongside people getting used to the strictness necessary to make it work.
You obviously get how these things interact since you built the game mechanics simulating public trust in government in response to measures. It’s no different from the rest of them, it just only works at the small end of the log scale. And to get to the small end and make zero cases an option you have to play the rest of the game like a champ.
Endgame for Victoria is that our leader, who according to large swathes of Australian media is basically a dictator, is probably getting re-elected by a significant margin. There should be a button for answering 90 minutes of press questions live on TV every day for 4 months straight.
As a Sydneysider, I'm disappointed and feel betrayed by Gladys. I'd have preferred a swift and tight lockdown rather than this pissweak setting that most of Sydney seems to be flaunting. It's clearly not going to work, and she'll open up NSW with infections to sky rocket.
I'd vote for Dan if I could.
I'd vote for Dan if I could.
> like Aus/NZ
Well, we haven't eradicated it have we. Keeps popping up.
We'll only know if the lockdowns are worthwhile after few years of accounting.
Well, we haven't eradicated it have we. Keeps popping up.
We'll only know if the lockdowns are worthwhile after few years of accounting.
We already know they have been absolutely worthwhile to date. We've lived with very occasional lockdowns, and apart from that life has been normal for most people (apart from those in hospo, overseas tourism etc.), and there have been negligible death or serious illness from COVID-19.
That's not to say the same equation holds true from here on in. Constant revaluation is required.
That's not to say the same equation holds true from here on in. Constant revaluation is required.
Maybe if you didn't live in Victoria. For Victorians, last year was anything but life as normal.
Still much less lockdown and fewer deaths than e.g. the UK. On the whole it think the cost was worth it, both in lives and economically
Cases keep being imported, and escaping quarantine. Not quite 'popping up'.
The game could have multiple levels of 'border closure'; Australia has relaxed border restrictions over the course of the pandemic.
The game could have multiple levels of 'border closure'; Australia has relaxed border restrictions over the course of the pandemic.
It's unfortunate, but you can't quite get rid of it that way, because you keep playing whack-a-mole... if one case gets through the sieve, or forgotten about, or it goes into mustelids or some other animal and then goes back into humans... then what will you do?
We need to rapidly expand vaccination instead along with increasing equity with regards to other countries, especially poorer ones.
We need to rapidly expand vaccination instead along with increasing equity with regards to other countries, especially poorer ones.
The game however gives you no means to whack the mole. Only country global measures. So the game does not let you "open up" without the number of infections rising again to unacceptable levels, but will punish you with low government trust. At the same time you cannot trace cases and cannot have local lockdowns. It does not represent reality.
I think the game "trace case" when the number of cases is less than 1000. I'm not sure how it's implemented, probably the increase rate changes when you pass that threshold.
Australia hasn’t eradicated the virus though and has botched a vaccine rollout. The federal government has relied on border control measures which include threatening Australian citizens with jail time if they try to return to their country.
>threatening Australian citizens with jail time if they try to return to their country. //
This seems like an obvious expedient during a pandemic? I guess, if you can set up facilities (crucially staffing) to allow repatriation with full quarantining that may be preferable.
How would you rather they behaved? Allowing non-essential international travel is idiotic in such circumstances.
This seems like an obvious expedient during a pandemic? I guess, if you can set up facilities (crucially staffing) to allow repatriation with full quarantining that may be preferable.
How would you rather they behaved? Allowing non-essential international travel is idiotic in such circumstances.
The game is modeled around mid-sized European nations. Westerners care so much about privacy and freedom that hard lockdowns and extensive contact tracing is politically impossible.
Australians and New Zealanders are westerners too
Everything seems to be "west" if you go far enough and allow for sufficient north/south drift.
now that the UK's soft power is crumbling so hard that it reveals them to simply be an island of hooligans, the entire Commonwealth inherits this brand too
in response to what you are saying, we can't exclude the Commonwealth from "the West", but maybe it's about time to make a term that does essentially do that. The complement to the union in graph theory. The West except the Commonwealth.
in response to what you are saying, we can't exclude the Commonwealth from "the West", but maybe it's about time to make a term that does essentially do that. The complement to the union in graph theory. The West except the Commonwealth.
NZ is not a great example of an average Western country, with regards to a pandemic.
For one thing, it is a small and remote island.
For another thing, it supplies most of the world's sterile bovine serums because the country has never had a case of mad cow disease. Laugh all you want, but that's a lucrative market and they are very good at border controls.
For one thing, it is a small and remote island.
For another thing, it supplies most of the world's sterile bovine serums because the country has never had a case of mad cow disease. Laugh all you want, but that's a lucrative market and they are very good at border controls.
Almost exactly the same size as the island of Great Britain, and while distanced somewhat as the crow flies, precisely one (1) plane fight away from many places.
Hmm... Remote, yes, but wouldn't describe it as a small island.
It's actually a collection of island, of a similar land mass to Great Britain or Japan.
But yes, being remote, and being islands surrounded by lots of ocean definitely helps.
But yes, being remote, and being islands surrounded by lots of ocean definitely helps.
NZ is not a single island :)
Also, both of our largest islands are far larger than Czechia. The South Island/Te Waipounamu is over twice the size of Czechia.
Also, both of our largest islands are far larger than Czechia. The South Island/Te Waipounamu is over twice the size of Czechia.
Ok, but the core issue you're intentionally ignoring is that nobody wanders into New Zealand without being vetted by border control. Except for a couple of oddballs who boat in (to a couple specific ports) every single person comes through an international import.
The core issue you and everyone else who makes this islands arguement is intentionally ignoring is that no country has been flooded with covid spreaders through a practical inability to enforce its borders. That Czechia or anywhere else doesn't only have people coming in through a couple specific locations is a policy decision. They could effectively be an island if they wanted to.
The US has tried and failed for 80 years to close its southern border.
Unless you're suggesting the US station ten million soldiers on the border and shoot anyone who tries to enter (hint: this is not politically feasible) closing the US is hopeless.
Unless you're suggesting the US station ten million soldiers on the border and shoot anyone who tries to enter (hint: this is not politically feasible) closing the US is hopeless.
How much Covid came from Mexico, and not through the airports? The Mexican border is a trojan horse in this discussion.
It doesn't matter "how much" came through. If even a handful of cases come through the border, and you have no internal restrictions, it's exponential spread. You either have 100% hard borders, or there's no point.
Sure, it's definitely easier to enter Czechia illegally than NZ.
...so how much Covid was brought to Czechia by illegal entry?
...so how much Covid was brought to Czechia by illegal entry?
Glad this lesson was finally learned, if nothing else.
And border control.
I once considered something like that for AIDS, based on the book "Sexual Ecology", by Rotello. A representation of the "gay fast lane", people with very high numbers of sexual partners per year (> 100) would have been included. You could try various strategies - closing bathhouses and bars, mandatory mass testing. Now that would have generated hate mail.
You can switch to English with the button on the top right.
Edit: It would be interesting that the site remember all the previous tries. I finally was able to avoid saturating the hospitals, but I don't remember how the other metrics compare with my previous tries.
Edit: Removed the link to the "version in English" because my link does not change the language.
Edit: It would be interesting that the site remember all the previous tries. I finally was able to avoid saturating the hospitals, but I don't remember how the other metrics compare with my previous tries.
Edit: Removed the link to the "version in English" because my link does not change the language.
It autoselects English which is correct for me. But then I figured out what it disregarded my preference and autoselected en-us mixed-endian date format *sigh*.
I have something like "es-ar, es, en, en-us". Probably if the first one is not English or a version of it, the site default to Czech.
That explains the [mis]behaviour, few software look that deep.
Long before the pandemic, I enjoyed playing Plague (mobile app game).
It's surprising accurate with its headlines — and was quite unnerving to live it irl.
And it's educational in the sense that the player must get just the right balance of transmission and symptoms before mutating ever-increasing lethality before becoming detected to 'win' the game (ie kill all humans).
https://www.ndemiccreations.com/en/22-plague-inc
It's surprising accurate with its headlines — and was quite unnerving to live it irl.
And it's educational in the sense that the player must get just the right balance of transmission and symptoms before mutating ever-increasing lethality before becoming detected to 'win' the game (ie kill all humans).
https://www.ndemiccreations.com/en/22-plague-inc
I loved playing Plague Inc (the PC version).
Now I have no remorse on playing on easy mode :)
I tried to do nothing and refuse all vaccinations etc... But it only killed 1/10 of the population. At least with Plague I could aim for total annihilation :)
Now I have no remorse on playing on easy mode :)
I tried to do nothing and refuse all vaccinations etc... But it only killed 1/10 of the population. At least with Plague I could aim for total annihilation :)
The reason this simulation is so inaccurate relative to reality, is that it's assuming the only basis for individuals' decisions are government policies.
In the beginning everyone was searching for information, reading articles, and sharing experiences and listening to stories. It was the main topic of conversation for months. In places where the first wave hit hard, personal experiences were a much more credible source of information, and motivator of behaviour, than random edicts from officials.
And the reason "hard" government policies are so problematic is that they shift responsibility for both actions and consequences from individuals to some faceless authority. What does a restaurant owner think after six months of lost livelihood, when they finally catch it and it feels like a cold? That's more responsibility than any random government official can bear, and why voluntary measures first is so important.
In the beginning everyone was searching for information, reading articles, and sharing experiences and listening to stories. It was the main topic of conversation for months. In places where the first wave hit hard, personal experiences were a much more credible source of information, and motivator of behaviour, than random edicts from officials.
And the reason "hard" government policies are so problematic is that they shift responsibility for both actions and consequences from individuals to some faceless authority. What does a restaurant owner think after six months of lost livelihood, when they finally catch it and it feels like a cold? That's more responsibility than any random government official can bear, and why voluntary measures first is so important.
Previous thread of this same game from 3 hours earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27761279
Neat! The model does seem fairly aggressive though. There are some US states that have done little and their deaths are no where near as extreme as what the games suggests.
Super cool, congratulations! This was an excellent reminder of just how difficult and multi-faceted the decisions made during COVID were for legislators. Obviously neither extreme (close everything vs open everyhing) was ever going to be satisfied with any government's response, but I think this made me appreciate the impossibility of managing a pandemic even more.
There are many measures one can take missing and the actions one can take are too broad. Missing for example the measure of introducing tests for the population for usage of essential services. For example there could be separate options for various types of masks. There could be options for where to use masks. Then there could be measures for offices and so on. Some of the events seem time-scripted, to happen regardless of what you do, or I have been unlucky. Like I had all restrictions up, and something under 5k cases, bam! mutation pops up.
A real government has waaay more ways to fight the pandemic. For example tracing of cases can be done, if there are few enough cases. Strict controls on quaranteen for returners from other countries.
However, the game sends the message: "Could you have done better?" Perhaps not too wrong.
A real government has waaay more ways to fight the pandemic. For example tracing of cases can be done, if there are few enough cases. Strict controls on quaranteen for returners from other countries.
However, the game sends the message: "Could you have done better?" Perhaps not too wrong.
„Hammer and dance“ seems to be the best strategy in this game. Acceptance of population does not seem to be affected by doing so.
My worst try was 140k deaths, best 20k. The range seems quite extrem- can this be backed by real world data?
My best was 620 deaths, government survived. I eased restrictions every now and then when approval got too low, but spent liberally and was mostly fully locked down. Approval never got below 36.
https://i.imgur.com/AAj8Hm6.png
I then ran a case with no restrictions or spending, got 140k deaths and very high approval (80ish?). Implemented only masks and border closures got a very similar result, about 140k deaths but much lower approval (around 45).
https://i.imgur.com/AAj8Hm6.png
I then ran a case with no restrictions or spending, got 140k deaths and very high approval (80ish?). Implemented only masks and border closures got a very similar result, about 140k deaths but much lower approval (around 45).
best try was 70 deaths with the government being overthrown in Jan 2021
Before 2020, I would never have though "government being overthrown" was a realistic potential outcome of implementing sensible public health policy during a deadly worldwide pandemic, but here we are.
EDIT: Just tried the game: The more you do to help people, and the more lives you save, the angrier they get. The people are the happiest if you let 10% of them die. It doesn't make any sense, but then again, the last 18 months have not made a lot of sense either.
EDIT: Just tried the game: The more you do to help people, and the more lives you save, the angrier they get. The people are the happiest if you let 10% of them die. It doesn't make any sense, but then again, the last 18 months have not made a lot of sense either.
It's like a Tontine. The losers aren't around to be unhappy, and those that didn't lose are happy because they suffered far less.
To some degree killing 10% is the optimal strategy but only for emotionless androids.
Are people getting unhappy because their relatives died though?
To some degree killing 10% is the optimal strategy but only for emotionless androids.
Are people getting unhappy because their relatives died though?
> The more you do to help people, and the more lives you save, the angrier they get. The people are the happiest if you let 10% of them die. It doesn't make any sense
Reading the discussions on various Czech news sites, it actually makes perfect sense: "we have to learn to live with it", "only the weak will not survive", "let's ditch the face masks already!", "just look at Sweden" and more. People hate the restrictions way more than they hate the virus. People want things to be like before and if they aren't, they're angry at the most visible threat to their wellbeing.
Reading the discussions on various Czech news sites, it actually makes perfect sense: "we have to learn to live with it", "only the weak will not survive", "let's ditch the face masks already!", "just look at Sweden" and more. People hate the restrictions way more than they hate the virus. People want things to be like before and if they aren't, they're angry at the most visible threat to their wellbeing.
I managed just 137 deaths without getting the government overthrown. https://koronahra.cz/results/60e67c7e683514001ad551ec
it's interesting if you think about it. as a government are you successful when you minimize the number of deaths or when you minimize the debt you incur?
It's being made as we speak.
I did absolutely nothing and only had 108k deaths.
I got just 137 deaths and 1.8 trillion in debt first time playing. I allowed protests, opened some stuff later on, and I allowed holiday gatherings, but otherwise locked everything down. I did extra compensation and such when I could. https://koronahra.cz/results/60e67c7e683514001ad551ec
Next time, I did nothing. Didn't invest in any vaccination campaigns or anything. Over 145k dead (yay, Army called in to dig mass graves!) And still 439B in debt.
https://koronahra.cz/results/60e67dfdfecc84001a33a410
Government survived in both cases (it's fair to point out that a sufficiently violent overthrowing of the government will end up killing people, so you should avoid it). So the first situation seemed like a better option. Each Czech life saved cost $440k (US). Worth every penny.
Next time, I did nothing. Didn't invest in any vaccination campaigns or anything. Over 145k dead (yay, Army called in to dig mass graves!) And still 439B in debt.
https://koronahra.cz/results/60e67dfdfecc84001a33a410
Government survived in both cases (it's fair to point out that a sufficiently violent overthrowing of the government will end up killing people, so you should avoid it). So the first situation seemed like a better option. Each Czech life saved cost $440k (US). Worth every penny.
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anything in here about non-human transmission. We know cats, dogs, hamsters, guinea pigs, mink, and gorillas can all get it. Ok, if you have a gorilla in your attic you probably have worse problems than infection, but with this many mammalian species already confirmed, it seems implausible to me that mice, squirrels, raccoons, possums, coyotes, foxes, and other common urban mammals are not spreading it.
I doubt animal transmission is a significant driver. Most animals remain outdoors and socially distanced from humans. Exceptions of course include farm workers, zookeepers, etc. But they’re a tiny percent of the population.
There was a famous outlier in Denmark, where a new mutation developed among farmed mink, and the government crushed it by killing all the farmed mink in the country.
The raccoon, or mouse, in your sick neighbor's attic last night, who goes into your attic tonight...
The mink are the only ones we _know_ transmitted it. But I don't think we've looked much.
Dogs, for one, do _not_ do social distancing.
Plus, since we learned it aerosolizes more than was initially thought, the animal that walked through your airspace 15 minutes before can share lungspace with you. They don't have to get that close to you, especially at night when the windspeed is low.
The mink are the only ones we _know_ transmitted it. But I don't think we've looked much.
Dogs, for one, do _not_ do social distancing.
Plus, since we learned it aerosolizes more than was initially thought, the animal that walked through your airspace 15 minutes before can share lungspace with you. They don't have to get that close to you, especially at night when the windspeed is low.
> "Plus, since we learned it aerosolizes more than was initially thought, the animal that walked through your airspace 15 minutes before can share lungspace with you. They don't have to get that close to you, especially at night when the windspeed is low."
such an infection would require the virus to hit a number of very low probability events in a row, like simply surviving outside the body for 15 minutes and a coordinated beelining of millions of particles into your lungs rather than dispersing out to the many orders of magnitude of space everywhere else around it. needless to say, it's quite unlikely, like less than lightning strike unlikely. as a society, we badly need to improve our ability to comparatively assess (and respond to) risk.
such an infection would require the virus to hit a number of very low probability events in a row, like simply surviving outside the body for 15 minutes and a coordinated beelining of millions of particles into your lungs rather than dispersing out to the many orders of magnitude of space everywhere else around it. needless to say, it's quite unlikely, like less than lightning strike unlikely. as a society, we badly need to improve our ability to comparatively assess (and respond to) risk.
Don't confuse common coronavirus in animals with Covid-19. My cats both have coronavirus, as many cats do, and will test positive for the test of their life. They don't, however, have Covid-19. They likely acquired it as shelter kittens many years ago.
Heads up, domestic cats can get sars-cov-2 as well: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-and-welfa...
[deleted]
So, like many of us, I did nothing, and let the virus burn itself out, which it managed to do by July 2020.
Approx 1% deaths. Which I think is acceptable, to allow 99% of the population to be able to return to a normal life so quickly.
However, I'm not sure I understand the impact of the hospitals being over capacity? Does the model factor in extra deaths of people who can't get treated for non-Covid problems?
Approx 1% deaths. Which I think is acceptable, to allow 99% of the population to be able to return to a normal life so quickly.
However, I'm not sure I understand the impact of the hospitals being over capacity? Does the model factor in extra deaths of people who can't get treated for non-Covid problems?
> Approx 1% deaths. Which I think is acceptable, to allow 99% of the population to be able to return to a normal life so quickly.
That's 100 million people dead, globally? And higher than UK deaths during WW2?
https://topforeignstocks.com/2016/04/19/chart-world-war-ii-c...
That's 100 million people dead, globally? And higher than UK deaths during WW2?
https://topforeignstocks.com/2016/04/19/chart-world-war-ii-c...
I have very low EQ, so yes, 100m globally (Actually 77.9m) vs 7.8 billion is totally acceptable (to me).
I'm not sure if "low EQ" is an explanation here - it would lead to indifference regarding deaths and "return to a normal life so quickly", no ?
Or is "population" a proxy for "me"?
Or is "population" a proxy for "me"?
It's a stats thing, plus a factual thing. I personally don't care much about the wellbeing of others, but I do understand based on what I read, that for the majority of people, they don't like dying, lockdowns, or masks etc.
So from that I can extrapolate that people want a 'return to a normal life quickly', as opposed to living with Covid over an extended time period.
> Or is "population" à proxy for "me"?
Absolutely not. I am totally fine with my splendid isolation. Most of the world could burn for all I care. The human race hasn't done me much favours in my life, so why should I care about people I don't even know?
I also upvoted you, not because I like you, but because you took the time to engage in dialogue.
So from that I can extrapolate that people want a 'return to a normal life quickly', as opposed to living with Covid over an extended time period.
> Or is "population" à proxy for "me"?
Absolutely not. I am totally fine with my splendid isolation. Most of the world could burn for all I care. The human race hasn't done me much favours in my life, so why should I care about people I don't even know?
I also upvoted you, not because I like you, but because you took the time to engage in dialogue.
1% doesn't mean much like that but let's say for the UK alone that would amount to 680k deaths. Does that still sound acceptable?
WWII death toll for the UK was 0.94% of the population.
I have very low EQ, so yes, it's still acceptable (to me).
Has anyone published studies on hospital capacity vs. mortality rate during covid? I tried to find that at the beginning but couldn't find anything.
I've always suspected claims that overcapacity hospitals drastically increasing the mortality rate are not supported by data. Obviously if more people have covid, more people will die from covid, but normalized to the number of people that had the disease.
I've always suspected claims that overcapacity hospitals drastically increasing the mortality rate are not supported by data. Obviously if more people have covid, more people will die from covid, but normalized to the number of people that had the disease.
Here is one short analysis from the country simulated in the game, that is Czechia.
One of the regions got an alpha variant wave sooner and the local hospitals actually went over capacity, with triage going on. You can see it in the time-variable CFR plots.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-cfr-data-can-tell-us-pan...
Roughly it seems case fatality rate increased almost 2-fold, despite hundreds of patients being transported out of the region by ambulances.
( https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...)
One of the regions got an alpha variant wave sooner and the local hospitals actually went over capacity, with triage going on. You can see it in the time-variable CFR plots.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-cfr-data-can-tell-us-pan...
Roughly it seems case fatality rate increased almost 2-fold, despite hundreds of patients being transported out of the region by ambulances.
( https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...)
There is one study I know of that found a "weak positive correlation" between number of ICU beds and mortality, no correlation between number of general beds and mortality:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7685049/
There was a lot of misinformation and confusing data at the start of the pandemic regarding hospital beds. Here in the US, hospitals tend to operate near capacity as SOP - a result of for profit healthcare seeking max profitability. Most hospitals here also started reserving a percentage of their beds, both ICU and general care, for covid patients. These reserved but sometimes unoccupied beds were not factored in when local hospitals reported being at capacity - so a local radio station might say "these local hospitals are at max capacity" without reporting that they still have 5% beds free specifically for covid patients. I suspect this may have caused some deaths by people not seeking care because they thought it wasn't available when it was, however I haven't seen anything to validate that hypothesis (and I doubt there will ever be any data).
One interesting sidenote is that the military hospitals that President Trump rolled out while he was still in charge had very little effect:
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/851712311/u-s-field-hospitals...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7685049/
There was a lot of misinformation and confusing data at the start of the pandemic regarding hospital beds. Here in the US, hospitals tend to operate near capacity as SOP - a result of for profit healthcare seeking max profitability. Most hospitals here also started reserving a percentage of their beds, both ICU and general care, for covid patients. These reserved but sometimes unoccupied beds were not factored in when local hospitals reported being at capacity - so a local radio station might say "these local hospitals are at max capacity" without reporting that they still have 5% beds free specifically for covid patients. I suspect this may have caused some deaths by people not seeking care because they thought it wasn't available when it was, however I haven't seen anything to validate that hypothesis (and I doubt there will ever be any data).
One interesting sidenote is that the military hospitals that President Trump rolled out while he was still in charge had very little effect:
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/851712311/u-s-field-hospitals...
I think this is part of it. Most locations did not actually experience hospital demand above capacity for long, if at all. Probably in large part due to the effectiveness of lockdowns.
I wouldn't really trust correlational studies that link hospital capacity and mortality rate during covid. You want to look for causal studies that try to isolate variation in hospital capacity using some sort of instrument to get to a causal estimate of the increase in capacity on mortality. A lot was going on during the covid pandemic that was probably correlating with hospital overcapacity that will bias the estimates from a correlational study.
Out of curiosity, which mechanism are you thinking about that would lead you to the conclusion that hospital capacity doesn't impact mortality? The story that I have heard the most is that hospitals start to turn away people if they don't have beds from them, leading to either delay in care or no care at all. Both delay or no care lead to higher mortality. I cannot really think of a story where an over-capacity hospital leads to the same or reduced mortality.
If you believe that hospital closures lead to hospital overcapacity or delays in care, you can find some literature that shows that closing hospitals leads to an increase in mortality in the community [1].
1: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26182
Out of curiosity, which mechanism are you thinking about that would lead you to the conclusion that hospital capacity doesn't impact mortality? The story that I have heard the most is that hospitals start to turn away people if they don't have beds from them, leading to either delay in care or no care at all. Both delay or no care lead to higher mortality. I cannot really think of a story where an over-capacity hospital leads to the same or reduced mortality.
If you believe that hospital closures lead to hospital overcapacity or delays in care, you can find some literature that shows that closing hospitals leads to an increase in mortality in the community [1].
1: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26182
> Out of curiosity, which mechanism are you thinking about that would lead you to the conclusion that hospital capacity doesn't impact mortality?
First, it's that hospitals effect on covid mortality is lower than believed. Second, while morbid, I assume mortality risk can be assessed pretty accurately by hospital staff. If you must triage, triaging someone who has a 99% chance of dying in the hospital and a 100% chance of dying outside the hospital raises the expected deaths by 0.01. Hospitals tend to serve everyone they can (for good reason) but the value add part comes from serving people who have a high chance of dying out of the hospital AND a relatively low chance of dying in the hospital.
These could be wildly wrong assumptions.
I would think hospital closures would cause a large increase in mortality rates as you don't get to triage effectively at that point.
First, it's that hospitals effect on covid mortality is lower than believed. Second, while morbid, I assume mortality risk can be assessed pretty accurately by hospital staff. If you must triage, triaging someone who has a 99% chance of dying in the hospital and a 100% chance of dying outside the hospital raises the expected deaths by 0.01. Hospitals tend to serve everyone they can (for good reason) but the value add part comes from serving people who have a high chance of dying out of the hospital AND a relatively low chance of dying in the hospital.
These could be wildly wrong assumptions.
I would think hospital closures would cause a large increase in mortality rates as you don't get to triage effectively at that point.
>I cannot really think of a story where an over-capacity hospital leads to the same or reduced mortality.
I think the emphasis on ventilators at the beginning of the pandemic likely caused an increase in mortality in hospitalized patients. At peak panic, there was a big push to create and distribute ventilators, including open source projects, big name tech billionaires dedicating resources, etc. Then we realized these were actually damaging lungs further, and nixed that treatment, switching to oxygen supplementation only.
I think the emphasis on ventilators at the beginning of the pandemic likely caused an increase in mortality in hospitalized patients. At peak panic, there was a big push to create and distribute ventilators, including open source projects, big name tech billionaires dedicating resources, etc. Then we realized these were actually damaging lungs further, and nixed that treatment, switching to oxygen supplementation only.
This is interesting to read now, because at the time (March 2020) I was watching Drs from Italy on YouTube saying that they recommended hi-flow O2 and proning with surgical masks on the patient. I remember this because I researched whether it would be worthwhile buying O2 cylinders or a generator, concluding : no, because it would be hard to produce the necessary flow with available equipment. Somehow this memo didn't make it out to the wider medical community it appears.
I don't think anyone actually used the "open source" ventilators did they? They were woefully lacking in critical features that prevent lung damage.
It's interesting that the game contrasts Voluntary and Involuntary Participation in pandemic counter-measures. At the extremes, everything is either voluntary or involuntary, but in real life, people are making decisions all the time based on the conditions they see; enforcement of government orders is only one of those conditions.
If I had a wish for the game, it would be to better show the lag between 3 things - Actual Infections, Test Positivity Rates, and Mortality.
In the US, there is now evidence that community spread was occuring much earlier than initially thought - we didn't know about infections because test were unavailable. Also, you will only ever learn about infections after people get tested.
Hospitalizations trail infection by 1-3 weeks, and death is 1-3 weeks after that.
The decisions you made 2 months ago show up in mortality 'now'
Add to that, the number of times where authorities went back and fixed the numbers. For a long time, there were not concrete numbers; in many cases the number of fatalities may never be known or agreed upon.
In the US, there is now evidence that community spread was occuring much earlier than initially thought - we didn't know about infections because test were unavailable. Also, you will only ever learn about infections after people get tested.
Hospitalizations trail infection by 1-3 weeks, and death is 1-3 weeks after that.
The decisions you made 2 months ago show up in mortality 'now'
Add to that, the number of times where authorities went back and fixed the numbers. For a long time, there were not concrete numbers; in many cases the number of fatalities may never be known or agreed upon.
I think the idea is that you should take decision with incomplete data. Perhaps it would be interesting to show in the closing screen all the additional information.
It doesn't include time parameters, yet we have had curfews here as the virus spreads more after dark. It seems to make assumptions that are unproven, like reusing the same mask day after day (like the vast majority of the public do) makes some kind of improvement.
Seems like most people did nothing in the first wave - only to pat themselves on the back when the rates were low in the summer. You may have to wait till the winter in the simulation to see how well that strategy really works... funny how art imitates reality!
Not really sure I understand this. If you play it long enough you bankrupt your country and the virus always wins. Is that the secret message, or do I just not know how to play?
[spoiler alert]
With mask/max10/closeHR/CloseUni you can get a good enough result for the first wave until the summer holidays. Perhaps you can reopen a little more.
(Max100 also work, but the hospitals are too saturated and I get too worried.)
The problem is the second wave after the "cold weather" arrives. Be prepare to hit "full lockdown" as soon as it start increasing. Open when a little when he wave disappears, but you may need to close again.
Continue with that until the vaccines arrive. With this simple strategy I got 32.3K deaths and a cost of 441B https://koronahra.cz/results/60e63272fecc84001a33a31a (Not in my first try.)
Someone got 6.4K death and a cost of 268B, that is much better.
Someone got 2.3K death and a cost of 342B, that looks like a good tradeoff.
Someone got 40.1K death and a cost of 141B, that is very cheap if you don't care abut people.
The graph in the finish scree has the result of other players. It's interesting to see that there is a lot possible improvement. (Perhaps also luck, some events are randomized.)
With mask/max10/closeHR/CloseUni you can get a good enough result for the first wave until the summer holidays. Perhaps you can reopen a little more.
(Max100 also work, but the hospitals are too saturated and I get too worried.)
The problem is the second wave after the "cold weather" arrives. Be prepare to hit "full lockdown" as soon as it start increasing. Open when a little when he wave disappears, but you may need to close again.
Continue with that until the vaccines arrive. With this simple strategy I got 32.3K deaths and a cost of 441B https://koronahra.cz/results/60e63272fecc84001a33a31a (Not in my first try.)
Someone got 6.4K death and a cost of 268B, that is much better.
Someone got 2.3K death and a cost of 342B, that looks like a good tradeoff.
Someone got 40.1K death and a cost of 141B, that is very cheap if you don't care abut people.
The graph in the finish scree has the result of other players. It's interesting to see that there is a lot possible improvement. (Perhaps also luck, some events are randomized.)
[spoiler alert]
I found that fully closing schools works better than closing high-risk, and you can leave business fully open for significant periods. My best is 2,582 deaths at a cost of 385B. https://koronahra.cz/results/60e6550661cdc10019e509ce
Masks and max 10 stay on the whole time. I close unis at +100 infections, close all schools at +200, close high-risk at +400, and essentials only at +800. Ease up on the restrictions when infections go down. I ignored those breakpoints and left things as open as possible during the warm weather period, since you can safely do that as long as you kept the initial outbreak under control.
Edit: 2,112 deaths at 380B, just targeting +75/+150/+300/+600: https://koronahra.cz/results/60e65b5dfecc84001a33a3a3
Edit 2: 1,691 at 405B using the 2112 strat with slight adjustments based on intuition: https://koronahra.cz/results/60e65cc061cdc10019e509e6
I found that fully closing schools works better than closing high-risk, and you can leave business fully open for significant periods. My best is 2,582 deaths at a cost of 385B. https://koronahra.cz/results/60e6550661cdc10019e509ce
Masks and max 10 stay on the whole time. I close unis at +100 infections, close all schools at +200, close high-risk at +400, and essentials only at +800. Ease up on the restrictions when infections go down. I ignored those breakpoints and left things as open as possible during the warm weather period, since you can safely do that as long as you kept the initial outbreak under control.
Edit: 2,112 deaths at 380B, just targeting +75/+150/+300/+600: https://koronahra.cz/results/60e65b5dfecc84001a33a3a3
Edit 2: 1,691 at 405B using the 2112 strat with slight adjustments based on intuition: https://koronahra.cz/results/60e65cc061cdc10019e509e6
I still don't understand why (UK) schools weren't closed sooner (for the general population, excepting children of key workers). I pulled my kids out a week before the first lockdown, it would have been perhaps a week sooner but it's illegal to do that in the UK.
It's well known schools are a major contributor to spread of diseases (and I did read some papers on flu spread in schools prior to making my decision to check the verity of the common wisdom on schools being Petri dishes of disease!).
It's well known schools are a major contributor to spread of diseases (and I did read some papers on flu spread in schools prior to making my decision to check the verity of the common wisdom on schools being Petri dishes of disease!).
Here in Argentina the government of the City of Buenos Aires says that the transmission in schools is very low (they are opened, but they include mandatory mask, temperature check, cleaning with alcohol everything, weird staggered enter and exit time to avoid contact between different classes, and every time a student sneeze the class get closed for a week or something like that.)
The National government and the government of the Province of Buenos Aires that control the ¿20? satellite cities [1] (with a total of x3 more population than the city) disagree, so they closed the schools.
After some time, the city closed some the classes of the oldest kids, and the province opened the classes of the smallest kids. And perhaps both made additional opening and closing, I lost track now. (If you have some spare popcorn and can read Spanish or are fine with an autotranslation, you can use Google to get more info. It's heavily politicized, so take each news source with a grain of salt.)
Anyway, ... it's not so clear how much is the spread rate in schools, and it's also not clear that they are using the correct coefficient in the model in this game. My guess is that we will need like 10-20 years to get an accurate model, and meanwhile we should try to make some educated guest.
I think the model in this game is accurate enough to decide between schools and business in real life, but it's useful to get an intuitive feeling of other stuff, like that you should not wait until the hospitals are at 100% of capacity to start a lockdown.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Buenos_Aires
The National government and the government of the Province of Buenos Aires that control the ¿20? satellite cities [1] (with a total of x3 more population than the city) disagree, so they closed the schools.
After some time, the city closed some the classes of the oldest kids, and the province opened the classes of the smallest kids. And perhaps both made additional opening and closing, I lost track now. (If you have some spare popcorn and can read Spanish or are fine with an autotranslation, you can use Google to get more info. It's heavily politicized, so take each news source with a grain of salt.)
Anyway, ... it's not so clear how much is the spread rate in schools, and it's also not clear that they are using the correct coefficient in the model in this game. My guess is that we will need like 10-20 years to get an accurate model, and meanwhile we should try to make some educated guest.
I think the model in this game is accurate enough to decide between schools and business in real life, but it's useful to get an intuitive feeling of other stuff, like that you should not wait until the hospitals are at 100% of capacity to start a lockdown.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Buenos_Aires
I got 3600 dead at 1.2T. I guess there’s ways to improve on that by coming down hard on the first wave, where basically 70% of my deaths happened.
I find it hard to impose a lot of restrictions when there’s basically 10 people per day infected, but suddenly it’s 500+/day.
I find it hard to impose a lot of restrictions when there’s basically 10 people per day infected, but suddenly it’s 500+/day.
There was/is definitely a lot of people prone to what I call the Seatbelt Fallacy - 'why do we need seatbelts [airbags, ABS, etc.] when deaths in car accidents aren't even that high!??' - which becomes "we didn't need lockdown, hardly anyone died" ...
The way the model is set up, a zero-CoVID strategy is impossible. If you close the borders and impose a full lockdown on day 1, you still end up getting about 10 cases/day forever (I believe this is due to assumptions about imported cases).
There are, however, countries that have achieved zero CoVID and then reopened and sustained zero CoVID. But this is only possible with strict border quarantine rules, extensive contact tracing and immediate mass testing whenever a new case shows up.
There are, however, countries that have achieved zero CoVID and then reopened and sustained zero CoVID. But this is only possible with strict border quarantine rules, extensive contact tracing and immediate mass testing whenever a new case shows up.
> There are, however, countries that have achieved zero CoVID and then reopened and sustained zero CoVID.
Is that actually true? The big success stories like Taiwan and Australia seem to keep getting imported cases and needing to lock down again.
Is that actually true? The big success stories like Taiwan and Australia seem to keep getting imported cases and needing to lock down again.
The assumption should also be existing cases of infection that are not yet symptomatic, or are totally asymptomatic. Borders are leaky too, but when the disease was found it was already well distributed, and with a long incubation period.
Neat game. A couple critiques:
1) no warm weather bonus in the second year?
2) maybe it would be fun to play with a fixed budget. As things stand it’s a little hard to make the trade off between money and lives
1) no warm weather bonus in the second year?
2) maybe it would be fun to play with a fixed budget. As things stand it’s a little hard to make the trade off between money and lives
Here's another corona policy simulator from last year:
https://ncase.me/covid-19/
https://ncase.me/covid-19/
It's beyond me why potential alternatives to lockdowns and restrictions in general are hardly ever discussed.
I understand that games like this one have to be based on actually available data and models. Still, testing and efficient track & trace schemes could be (have been) a huge factor in preventing COVID-19 spread.
For example, if everyone took a rapid antigene test twice a day, we'd be able to track new infections very quickly and before those can spread any further.
If implemented properly, with such a scheme we perhaps could even do without any additional measures (other than vaccination, that is), incur merely a fraction of the current costs, and still keep the numbers of deaths and severe cases much lower than they are with the blunt instrument that is blanket lockdowns.
I understand that games like this one have to be based on actually available data and models. Still, testing and efficient track & trace schemes could be (have been) a huge factor in preventing COVID-19 spread.
For example, if everyone took a rapid antigene test twice a day, we'd be able to track new infections very quickly and before those can spread any further.
If implemented properly, with such a scheme we perhaps could even do without any additional measures (other than vaccination, that is), incur merely a fraction of the current costs, and still keep the numbers of deaths and severe cases much lower than they are with the blunt instrument that is blanket lockdowns.
I wouldn’t say this isn’t discussed, I’ve heard a lot of people (including epidemiologists) mention the idea. Early in the pandemic there seemed to be some optimism for a new future where everyone can check for colds/flu/etc from home before going out.
There was some country in Eastern Europe that mailed everyone a test right? I remember reading that it didn’t end up reducing cases, so maybe that soured people on the idea.
There was some country in Eastern Europe that mailed everyone a test right? I remember reading that it didn’t end up reducing cases, so maybe that soured people on the idea.
The Czech Republic at one point tested the whole population, which helped with temporarily reducing the number of new infections IIRC.
Rapid tests took long time to reach the market, pandemic was already big when they became available at scale. I also think most people would not agree with getting tested so often (I would not).
Track and trace was introduced and failed in most countries.
Track and trace was introduced and failed in most countries.
Rapid tests have been available since autumn last year at least. They're a lot easier and cheaper to produce than vaccines, for example. Producing and supplying them at scale is just a matter of demand. Most countries just didn't bother to buy them early on.
It's true that getting tested frequently is invasive, quite literally so.
We seem to forget too easily, though, that lockdowns and the civil rights restrictions that come with them are much more invasive (albeit perhaps not that literally in most cases). Yet, we still put up with those.
> Track and trace was introduced and failed in most countries.
That's because most countries made a half-arsed attempt at best, sometimes hampered by largely imaginary privacy requirements.
The main concern with the track & trace apps available in the EU, for example, was to supposedly comply with GDPR and local privacy laws, rather than protecting people from contracting and spreading a disease.
This is why these apps were expressly designed to only store data in a decentralised fashion, which effectively kept local health authorities from using that data to do their job.
The funny thing is: In terms of GDPR, there of course is nothing that keeps you from storing such data on a server (much less so even, if you're a government agency) as long as you have the user's consent and explicitly state how that data will be used.
It's true that getting tested frequently is invasive, quite literally so.
We seem to forget too easily, though, that lockdowns and the civil rights restrictions that come with them are much more invasive (albeit perhaps not that literally in most cases). Yet, we still put up with those.
> Track and trace was introduced and failed in most countries.
That's because most countries made a half-arsed attempt at best, sometimes hampered by largely imaginary privacy requirements.
The main concern with the track & trace apps available in the EU, for example, was to supposedly comply with GDPR and local privacy laws, rather than protecting people from contracting and spreading a disease.
This is why these apps were expressly designed to only store data in a decentralised fashion, which effectively kept local health authorities from using that data to do their job.
The funny thing is: In terms of GDPR, there of course is nothing that keeps you from storing such data on a server (much less so even, if you're a government agency) as long as you have the user's consent and explicitly state how that data will be used.
> For example, if everyone took a rapid antigene test twice a day, we'd be able to track new infections very quickly and before those can spread any further.
Cornell University used on-campus labs to PCR test students up to 3 times per week, and that level of surveillance testing mostly kept things under control. There's a talk on YouTube explaining how they used models to choose the necessary frequency of surveillance testing within subgroups [0]. I thought it was an encouraging example of models and data driving policy to actually solve the problem at hand. So yes, there's evidence that surveillance testing works, and it doesn't even need to be as frequent as 2x daily. Testing is also important because we won't necessarily always get a working vaccine as quickly as we did this time.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqrFgYzhyPI
Cornell University used on-campus labs to PCR test students up to 3 times per week, and that level of surveillance testing mostly kept things under control. There's a talk on YouTube explaining how they used models to choose the necessary frequency of surveillance testing within subgroups [0]. I thought it was an encouraging example of models and data driving policy to actually solve the problem at hand. So yes, there's evidence that surveillance testing works, and it doesn't even need to be as frequent as 2x daily. Testing is also important because we won't necessarily always get a working vaccine as quickly as we did this time.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqrFgYzhyPI
You think the people refusing to get vaccinated are going to take a rapid antigen test?
Well, those people perhaps aren't happily complying with lockdown measures either.
It's a matter of how such a scheme would be implemented. One could imagine working with incentives, for example.
Alternatively, being able to produce a valid, up-to-date test result at any time could be made mandatory. This might seem draconian but it's a lot less so than unending lockdowns and the perspective of continued social distancing.
It's a matter of how such a scheme would be implemented. One could imagine working with incentives, for example.
Alternatively, being able to produce a valid, up-to-date test result at any time could be made mandatory. This might seem draconian but it's a lot less so than unending lockdowns and the perspective of continued social distancing.
That looks like false dichotomy. You can lift lockdowns and not have forced medical procedures at the same time.
Of course you can but there will be trade-offs.
Those procedures (tests, vaccinations) can be entirely voluntary (as they are right now).
However, then you could be facing a situation where not enough people get vaccinated or tested for curbing the spread of the virus.
Societies will have to decide if they’re fine with the consequences that entails.
Personally, I think that lockdowns and any other mandatory measures should be lifted once everyone’s vaccinated who wants to be vaccinated.
Others - and societies as a whole - might disagree, though, which from my point of view would be a major problem, especially if continued lockdowns then are still considered the only viable alternative.
Those procedures (tests, vaccinations) can be entirely voluntary (as they are right now).
However, then you could be facing a situation where not enough people get vaccinated or tested for curbing the spread of the virus.
Societies will have to decide if they’re fine with the consequences that entails.
Personally, I think that lockdowns and any other mandatory measures should be lifted once everyone’s vaccinated who wants to be vaccinated.
Others - and societies as a whole - might disagree, though, which from my point of view would be a major problem, especially if continued lockdowns then are still considered the only viable alternative.
I enjoyed this a lot.
One decent strat to explore was just turning on extra comp and nothing else. Social stability tended to stay at the max. 141k people died. Knowing how strong this is, you can just buy your way out of almost any upset with other choices for a relatively marginal increase in costs.
A couple things I didn't understand:
* My immune numbers started to go down at some point. Why?
* How many people are there? The game suggests 10 million, but near the end it suggested there could have been 14 million people infected. I wonder if this game just uses an exponential model under its hood rather than something logarithmic.
* Can the vaccine pr ever work out favorably? Seems like it doesn't.
One decent strat to explore was just turning on extra comp and nothing else. Social stability tended to stay at the max. 141k people died. Knowing how strong this is, you can just buy your way out of almost any upset with other choices for a relatively marginal increase in costs.
A couple things I didn't understand:
* My immune numbers started to go down at some point. Why?
* How many people are there? The game suggests 10 million, but near the end it suggested there could have been 14 million people infected. I wonder if this game just uses an exponential model under its hood rather than something logarithmic.
* Can the vaccine pr ever work out favorably? Seems like it doesn't.
> My immune numbers started to go down at some point. Why?
The methodology page [0] explains resistant people eventually become susceptible to infection again.
> but near the end it suggested there could have been 14 million people infected
Since the game is tracking total number of infections, rather than people infected, and since infected people can become susceptible again, that would explain the #infections > total population.
[0] https://koronahra.cz/about
The methodology page [0] explains resistant people eventually become susceptible to infection again.
> but near the end it suggested there could have been 14 million people infected
Since the game is tracking total number of infections, rather than people infected, and since infected people can become susceptible again, that would explain the #infections > total population.
[0] https://koronahra.cz/about
That methodology doesn't appear to be supported by the latest scientific research. The vast majority of recovered patients retain a high level of immunity for an extended period of time. Reinfections have occurred but statistically are very rare.
Neat!
Is there an API for this game so we can try to achieve great results programmatically?
This or a refined version should be basically mandatory for policy makers
That already exists, although not quite as interactive.
At least in the uk, there are agent-based models which have been used for policy (although it’s impossible to tell if they were effective in driving policy decisions in practice - the UK media would say no, although it’s a little bit more nuanced in reality).
At least in the uk, there are agent-based models which have been used for policy (although it’s impossible to tell if they were effective in driving policy decisions in practice - the UK media would say no, although it’s a little bit more nuanced in reality).
OK, finished it despite of high CPU and all the interruptions.
Didn't like what it is impossible to simulate no actions at all – one of dialog wants either 10 Populism or 500 Monies, also there is implicit vaccination going unapproved by El Governmente.
I'd play it again in Tropico.
I'd play it again in Tropico.
I wish I could disable the notifications. Or can I?
[deleted]
Somewhat morbid, but still interesting.
Biochemist here. Interesting concept, but extremely misleading.
This game has an unrealistic rate of decay when measures are taken. You can take every possible action (full lockdown, throw all the money at the problem) to the max from day 1, and you'll spend the whole game at 10 new cases per day, even after the vaccine rollout. That's just not how things play out.
This game has an unrealistic rate of decay when measures are taken. You can take every possible action (full lockdown, throw all the money at the problem) to the max from day 1, and you'll spend the whole game at 10 new cases per day, even after the vaccine rollout. That's just not how things play out.
[one of the coauthors of the game here]
On the contrary, the game is realistic in this aspect. Czechia was basically never able to close the borders so tightly you would prevent "all imports". What "closed borders" meant in practice were tens of thousands people crossing the border every day. With prevalence in the rest of the Europe often much higher than 1 in 10k, this means you always have a stream of imports.
Note that some of the borders look like this: https://polar.cz/data/gallery/modules/polar/news/articles/vi... you have a town on both sides, and in normal times, due to Schengen, people are used to work and shop cross-border. ?In such contexts you can prevent most of cross-border travel, but not all of it.
On the contrary, the game is realistic in this aspect. Czechia was basically never able to close the borders so tightly you would prevent "all imports". What "closed borders" meant in practice were tens of thousands people crossing the border every day. With prevalence in the rest of the Europe often much higher than 1 in 10k, this means you always have a stream of imports.
Note that some of the borders look like this: https://polar.cz/data/gallery/modules/polar/news/articles/vi... you have a town on both sides, and in normal times, due to Schengen, people are used to work and shop cross-border. ?In such contexts you can prevent most of cross-border travel, but not all of it.
I see the issue, but I call that "a lack of political will", not "impossible".
The author said they excluded the "COVID-zero" strategy, because Czech leadership did not consider it an option. See their comment at the top of this thread.
If you do what the buttons in the game say you're doing, you're going to get to zero after just a few weeks. That much is not a political question so much as it's a natural science question.
As for the political aspect of the question, ie.: "what options are available to us"...
I regret to be so blunt but in almost every case, when you hear people say that we can't afford eradication and that the best we can do is mitigate, that right there is what I would call serious political bullshit. It's what politicians say when they don't want to make difficult unpopular decisions. Eradication is almost always* the cheaper option.
* (exceptions may apply)
As for the political aspect of the question, ie.: "what options are available to us"...
I regret to be so blunt but in almost every case, when you hear people say that we can't afford eradication and that the best we can do is mitigate, that right there is what I would call serious political bullshit. It's what politicians say when they don't want to make difficult unpopular decisions. Eradication is almost always* the cheaper option.
* (exceptions may apply)
Where are those millions of dead people in the streets? Something wrong with this simulation.
Does this simulation include hospitals being incentivized to label as many "Covid Related" deaths as possible, placebo mask wearing, corrupt one-sided media reporting, or changing the covid test cycle-count immediately after a vaccine was released?
Unfortunate that it doesn't allow you to get back to zero.
Various countries have managed to do it, including China with hard lock downs.
China is not at zero even today. Literally today they imposed a lockdown in Ruili due to an outbreak.
a) it was yesterday.
b) getting back to zero does not mean staying at zero. China has had long stretches of time with zero reported cases of local transmission, punctuated by brief outbreaks like the current one.
b) getting back to zero does not mean staying at zero. China has had long stretches of time with zero reported cases of local transmission, punctuated by brief outbreaks like the current one.
On the Worldometers chart, China has never had any stretch with 0 cases (I'm mousing over the Total Cases graph and it never noticeably stays the same number; there may be a handful of single days mixed in there that aren't obvious like this). It's their deaths that stopped increasing - only 4 new deaths in over a year.
Worldometers is including travelers who get infected outside of China, but who are diagnosed as having SARS-CoV-2 while undergoing the mandatory quarantine to enter China.
That's different from people who get infected in China. There have been long stretches of time with zero local cases in China.
Just to illustrate the difference, here's a typical daily report from China's main public health authority:[1]
> BEIJING, June 28 (Xinhua) -- The Chinese mainland on Sunday reported 21 imported COVID-19 cases but no new locally transmitted cases, the National Health Commission said in its daily report on Monday.
The "imported cases" are among travelers undergoing quarantine.
There have been a few outbreaks with local transmission, but so far, all of them have been successfully contained before they spread very far. Right now, for example, there's an outbreak in a town on the border with Myanmar. The town itself has been locked down and everyone in it (270k people) has undergone PCR testing, and will be tested a second time over the coming days. So far, about two dozen infected people have been identified. However, outside of this town, there are currently zero local cases in China.
1. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-06/28/c_1310031605.htm
That's different from people who get infected in China. There have been long stretches of time with zero local cases in China.
Just to illustrate the difference, here's a typical daily report from China's main public health authority:[1]
> BEIJING, June 28 (Xinhua) -- The Chinese mainland on Sunday reported 21 imported COVID-19 cases but no new locally transmitted cases, the National Health Commission said in its daily report on Monday.
The "imported cases" are among travelers undergoing quarantine.
There have been a few outbreaks with local transmission, but so far, all of them have been successfully contained before they spread very far. Right now, for example, there's an outbreak in a town on the border with Myanmar. The town itself has been locked down and everyone in it (270k people) has undergone PCR testing, and will be tested a second time over the coming days. So far, about two dozen infected people have been identified. However, outside of this town, there are currently zero local cases in China.
1. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-06/28/c_1310031605.htm
And this outbreak currently only affects a single city on the border with Myanmar. The other 1.4 billion people are still going about their daily lives.
How does that negate anything that I said?
It doesn't. I was also disappointed by this. I'm in Australia and we kept our numbers low by locking down hard and early and distinguishing between community transmission and infection via incoming travellers. We did often hit long periods of no community transmission and only had outbreaks due to breaches in protocol or sloppiness by some people's part.
Its shocking to me that anyone believes numbers reported by China. They reported stopping at 80k around the time America started lockdown, and the total number is around 90k today. Absurd lies.
Lots of people on HN (and in the tech industry more broadly) live in China or have family in China. You can ask anyone you know who lives in China or who has family/friends in China what the situation has been like over the last year. Public spaces like restaurants and theaters have been open, nobody is coming down with CoVID-19, and the hospitals aren't overflowing.
This would simply be impossible if there were community spread of the virus inside China. With open restaurants, theaters, etc., the virus would spread like wildfire in China's dense cities, and everyone would know about it. The strict lockdowns in early 2020 worked to bring cases very near zero, and they were followed up with mass testing campaigns (for example, nearly all 11 million residents of Wuhan were tested in June 2020) to find the last few infections.[1,2]
The common reaction among many people, to deny that China eliminated SARS-CoV-2 within its borders, simply isn't tenable.
1. "Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
2. "Comprehensive large-scale nucleic acid–testing strategies support China’s sustained containment of COVID-19": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01308-7
This would simply be impossible if there were community spread of the virus inside China. With open restaurants, theaters, etc., the virus would spread like wildfire in China's dense cities, and everyone would know about it. The strict lockdowns in early 2020 worked to bring cases very near zero, and they were followed up with mass testing campaigns (for example, nearly all 11 million residents of Wuhan were tested in June 2020) to find the last few infections.[1,2]
The common reaction among many people, to deny that China eliminated SARS-CoV-2 within its borders, simply isn't tenable.
1. "Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
2. "Comprehensive large-scale nucleic acid–testing strategies support China’s sustained containment of COVID-19": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01308-7
Nice simulator.
Did nothing. Costs within a budget. Zero days of school lost. Only 150k dead for 15M infections (~1%).
Did nothing. Costs within a budget. Zero days of school lost. Only 150k dead for 15M infections (~1%).
150k dead in the entirety of the small nation of Czechia. Yikes, that's a lot. I would not use the modifier "only" to describe that death toll. That's 1.4% of the nation's population. For context, that's about 43% of the total WW2 deaths of that nation done in a fraction of the time. I hope the "costs within budget" was worth that.
Also if you use the do nothing strategy, you end up with an economic cost of 400B+. It’s really bad bang for your buck…
Please cite a source for 150K, as that's pretty outlandish. Official government data is 30,311 dead here:
https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19
The czech republic, in general, has below average respiratory outcomes due to higher than average levels of smoking and historically high levels of air pollution under communism (they burned brown coal), as well as an older population (1% of the population experiences acute respiratory infections each year). But all of these factors are improving, with cleaner air, declining smoking rates, etc.
The czech republic, in general, has below average respiratory outcomes due to higher than average levels of smoking and historically high levels of air pollution under communism (they burned brown coal), as well as an older population (1% of the population experiences acute respiratory infections each year). But all of these factors are improving, with cleaner air, declining smoking rates, etc.
I think you're very confused on the context of my comment. The link that this thread goes to is a simulator that mimics controlling COVID spread in the Czech Republic based on player-controlled government initiatives. I'm replying to someone who said they got 150k deaths in the game. My comment has nothing to do with real world COVID numbers in the Czech Republic.
Go to https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor... and sort by total death.
In the first position is Peru with ~6000 death/million. After that there are a bunch of countries with ~3000 death/million including Czechia. And then the number goes down.
Czechia has ~11000000 habitants, so 150K/11M is like ~13000 death/million that is the double of the current country with more death/million and like four time bigger than the other countries.
In the first position is Peru with ~6000 death/million. After that there are a bunch of countries with ~3000 death/million including Czechia. And then the number goes down.
Czechia has ~11000000 habitants, so 150K/11M is like ~13000 death/million that is the double of the current country with more death/million and like four time bigger than the other countries.
> Please cite a source for 150K
Read the parent of the comment you responded to.
Read the parent of the comment you responded to.
No, that's not a lot. It's only 1%. Much less than the cost of lockdowns. Obviously less than 150% of the population gets infected in real life.
> No, that's not a lot. It's only 1%. Much less than the cost of lockdowns.
Apart from the fact that I can't fathom how you could say that 1% of an entire country's population is "not a lot", do you have a source for how many people died as "cost of lockdowns"? I see this being regurgitated a lot but I doubt that more people died due to lockdowns/restrictions than from Covid19 itself.
Apart from the fact that I can't fathom how you could say that 1% of an entire country's population is "not a lot", do you have a source for how many people died as "cost of lockdowns"? I see this being regurgitated a lot but I doubt that more people died due to lockdowns/restrictions than from Covid19 itself.
Everyone lost more than one year of their life. That alone outweights any benefit.
What do you mean by "lost"? As far as I know we still lived, albeit in more or less restricted circumstances. I would suggest taking a step back and reevaluating if the past year really has been worse than dying.
It absolutely has.
Dying is objectively worse. Don't get me wrong but just in case you're not in a good place, please find somebody to talk to about this. Friends, family, your family doctor, a mental health hotline, anyone. Heck, contact me if you feel like you're out of options, base64 encoded email aGFja2VybmV3c2NvbnRhY3RAZmFzdG1haWwuY29tCg==
Being dead is worse in that it doesn't end, yes. But that year was not worth living.
You get a little scatterplot at the end of the simulation, your result as the bottom right (the "do nothing option") kills 1.4% of the population.
https://imgur.com/nK3wwjv
I managed to keep costs somewhat low with a total of 2300 deaths.
https://imgur.com/nK3wwjv
I managed to keep costs somewhat low with a total of 2300 deaths.
[deleted]
The population of Czechia is 10 million, so that's 1.5%.
15M infections means 15M people of potentially life altering conditions. It could be worse than death
There is still no evidence for that.
Things are dangerous until proven safe. If you’re on a hike, you don’t eat strange berries under the assumption they’re safe.
> Things are dangerous until proven safe. If you’re on a hike, you don’t eat strange berries under the assumption they’re safe.
Yet this doesn't apply to the unknown long-term effects of the mRNA vaccines?
Yet this doesn't apply to the unknown long-term effects of the mRNA vaccines?
It does. Rational people evaluate the known risks and take a reasonable guess what the unknown risks might be. Conspiracy people gonna conspiracy.
That will take a while because there is no such thing as proof outside mathematics. But the fact that the percentage of people who suffer permanent damage from Covid is neglible and there would have been plenty of time to detect it is as close as it gets.
Blows my mind that there are still people this afraid of the virus, literally postulating worst case scenarios 15 months later. Reality beckons!
Can you somehow turn off these constant pop-ups? Literally every two seconds a new message pops up about how I'm doing, how many people died in one day (I can see that alright), that it's summer (you don't say), that the social stability is dropping (that's the number I was looking at, thanks), if maybe I want to restart... I spend more time clicking OK yes next next finish than playing the game.
"Please don't complain about website formatting, back-button breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then friendly feedback might be helpful."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Man, chill the harsh, it's just a game...
hence I'd like to play it :)
If there is a settings panel that I'm missing, that would be great. Though I also noticed it's a lot better at lower speeds (since the actions are visible with 2 weeks delay I had it on fast-forward at first, more arcade style for a first run than weigh-and-deliberate style)
If there is a settings panel that I'm missing, that would be great. Though I also noticed it's a lot better at lower speeds (since the actions are visible with 2 weeks delay I had it on fast-forward at first, more arcade style for a first run than weigh-and-deliberate style)
First, this URL https://covidgame.info/ loads the game in English by default. There was a plan to popularize the game outside of Czechia but, frankly, we missed the window when major news outlets were interested.
To address few points mentioned in the comments: the game was tuned to the specific situation in Czech Republic around end of 2020 / beginning 2021. The goal was to build basic quantitative intuition about the behavior of the epidemiological model (SEIR model) that the general public and decision makers were lacking. The game doesn't allow for zero covid strategy - because that was never realistically considered. Likewise, we after some considerations, we didn't include cheap interventions like extensive testing, contact tracing and better government communication. This doesn't mean that we didn't support such interventions. However, Czech government proved unwilling or incapable to implement such measures and in the short/medium term broad restrictions were the only "levers" the decision makers could pull.
There is an interview for a major Czech Internet server about some aspects of the game development: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&u=https:/...
We were working together with some real experts in Covid modelling and the model was in my opinion quantitatively sound (though, as we repeatedly said, the model was not optimized for scientific accuracy). At the end the was played by some members of the parliament, party experts and even ministers. We know that the game helped to facilitate consensus between the government and opposition in a very fragile political situation. I believe that, at the end, the game saved hundreds or thousands lives by helping to implement some necessary restrictions sooner than they'd be implemented otherwise.