Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.76 [SLACK_000290] · slack_pm:msg:00765

Date: 2020-06-12 15:59
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

> climatic conditions play a secondary role when the population is completely susceptible Maybe. This has been my thinking as well, but I'm not convinced. *Clearly* seasonality is incapable of halting transmission, but that's not the same as having no effect. What my concern for e.g., the US is that the question isn't whether "summer will slow down (or stop) transmission", but rather whether "we should expect the fall to be even worse". It's subtle - but I think it's critical that we don't assume that weather has no effect because it didn't stop (oreven slow down - although I'm not convinced it hasn't) the virus. Since Australia and NZ will head into winter with extremely limited transmission and seemingly good programs inplace, I'm less concerned. However, in a place like the US, the situation could turn from severe to catastrophic.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2020-06-12 15:42 Edward C. Holmes open

I was worried about conclusion being made on whether people use/don't use face masks. Australia and NZ have had 2 of the most successful control policies globally. Hardly anyone where's a mask here.
2020-06-12 15:46 Kristian G. Andersen open

I think the data is shifting pretty strongly towards mask wearing being (potentially highly) beneficial. But it's definitely not the only way - Denmark is the same. One concern I have about the success Down Under - what's the effect ofweather? I hope NZ and Australia won't sleep on their laurels as winter approaches.
2020-06-12 15:52 Edward C. Holmes open

Oh, I don't disagree with the conclusion at all (I completely agree that face masks are hugely important), but the analysis is dire. There's no weather effect in any of this: climatic conditions play a secondary role when the population is completely susceptible - that's the key factor. Look at Brazil and Chile is kicking off. Seasonality may well evolve as immunity kicks in, but it's not there yet.
2020-06-12 15:53 Edward C. Holmes open

Africa is also kicking off.
2020-06-12 15:59 Kristian G. Andersen

> climatic conditions play a secondary role when the population is completely susceptible Maybe. This has been my thinking as well, but I'm not convinced. *Clearly* seasonality is incapable of halting transmission, but that's not the same as having no effect. What my concern for e.g., the US is that the question isn't whether "summer will slow down (or stop) transmission", but rather whether "we should expect the fall to be even worse". It's subtle - but I think it's critical that we don't assume that weather has no effect because it didn't stop (oreven slow down - although I'm not convinced it hasn't) the virus. Since Australia and NZ will head into winter with extremely limited transmission and seemingly good programs inplace, I'm less concerned. However, in a place like the US, the situation could turn from severe to catastrophic.
2020-06-12 16:03 Edward C. Holmes open

It would be much better if the virus were seasonal...that would make planning much easier. I think that it will likely become a seasonal endemic virus but thay may take a little time. Obviously, the public health authorities need to bevigilant throughout.
2020-06-12 16:04 Edward C. Holmes open

P.S. I didn't say it has no effect, but rather the huge number of susceptible hosts is more important at the moment.
2020-06-12 16:05 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yup, agreed - 1% immunity and there's a pretty long way to go...
2020-06-12 16:05 Kristian G. Andersen open

(to herd immunity - but also to when we might actually see seasonal forcing)

Full conversation →