[Goose]

Ultimately, restrictions should be set not based on level, but on growth rate.  If R > 1, then you need to tighten up restrictions until R < 1.  It is better with this virus to act decisively early than to have to scramble and wait and have to act in a panic later.  This means that if case levels are low but growing, you have some time to institute restrictions and test their effect and then act accordingly.  If you wait until its almost too late, then you have to scramble and don't have time to fine tune the restrictions.

Absolutely agree with your comments about using R as the determining statistic. However, there are constraints. You certainly can't let the health care system saturate. The problem is "having some time ..." is very tricky. When R is > 1, the system is out of control. If your "tweaks" don't have the desired effects, the time you had to wait to measure the results has you now in a much worse situation total case wise and closer to saturation. That is kind of what we have been doing. The delay in the system makes it very difficult to control it by a "feedback" method, especially when the response to control inputs is somewhat unknown.

And to answer your question, yes we should be instituting travel restrictions and limiting non-essential travel.  And Santa Clara county instituted a widely mocked (on this board) quarantine requirement for those traveling more than 150 miles, which, given the data, was actually pretty wise.



BC

The quarantine requirement is interesting because since it isn't enforced (that I am aware of) it is more of an advisory. I don't criticize it as being too harsh. I think it is inadequate if they really want to drive the case count down rapidly. By comparison, my friend who lives near Aprilia in Italy cannot leave the commune (73k people) except to go to work and return. It isn't "quarantine when you get back". It is "you can't go" and they at least attempt to enforce it. Right now, people are being pretty compliant, because they have seen this movie before and don't want the "don't go to work" to be added. This is in an area of Italy that is in pretty "good" shape. Italy is finally getting it's case load down. That is what it has taken them to do it. SCC is nowhere near that yet.

[Goose]

Ultimately, restrictions should be set not based on level, but on growth rate.  If R > 1, then you need to tighten up restrictions until R < 1.  It is better with this virus to act decisively early than to have to scramble and wait and have to act in a panic later.  This means that if case levels are low but growing, you have some time to institute restrictions and test their effect and then act accordingly.  If you wait until its almost too late, then you have to scramble and don't have time to fine tune the restrictions.

Absolutely agree with your comments about using R as the determining statistic. However, there are constraints. You certainly can't let the health care system saturate. The problem is "having some time ..." is very tricky. When R is > 1, the system is out of control. If your "tweaks" don't have the desired effects, the time you had to wait to measure the results has you now in a much worse situation total case wise and closer to saturation. That is kind of what we have been doing. The delay in the system makes it very difficult to control it by a "feedback" method, especially when the response to control inputs is somewhat unknown.

And to answer your question, yes we should be instituting travel restrictions and limiting non-essential travel.  And Santa Clara county instituted a widely mocked (on this board) quarantine requirement for those traveling more than 150 miles, which, given the data, was actually pretty wise.



BC

The quarantine requirement is interesting because since it isn't enforced (that I am aware of) it is more of an advisory. I don't criticize it as being too harsh. I think it is inadequate if they really want to drive the case count down rapidly. By comparison, my friend who lives near Aprilia in Italy cannot leave the commune (73k people) except to go to work and return. It isn't "quarantine when you get back". It is "you can't go" and they at least attempt to enforce it. Right now, people are being pretty compliant, because they have seen this movie before and don't want the "don't go to work" to be added. This is in an area of Italy that is in pretty "good" shape. Italy is finally getting it's case load down. That is what it has taken them to do it. SCC is nowhere near that yet.