<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Merle,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So, we flattened the curve. Good. That’s done. But the whole metaphor of flattening the curve has an implication that has never been explored. Other than the excess deaths that occur because intensive care fails, a flattened curve has just as many deaths as a peaky curve. So if we only <b><i>flatten</i></b> the curve, then somewhere around 1 percent of the population dies. That’s 3.5 million people. Is that tolerable? If yes, then our policy consists of letting people go back to work and jumping on any outbreaks that occur before they can get “peaky”. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> If no, then what? The next policy down, it seems to me, or “up” in terms of invasiveness, is what I have been calling the “white-van policy”. Every suspect case or contact is tested and those people who cannot show a negative test or immunity are <i>immediately </i>isolated and cared for at government expense until they show negative. Such a policy, paired with a limitation on large gatherings, would probably eliminate the virus from being a major consideration by september. But the only state I know of that has even GESTURED in that direction is Massachusetts, and they are no-where NEAR getting there. Mortality under half a million, all in? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>What frustrates me to distraction is that Santa Fe is not exploring such a strategy right now. At two cases a day, how many contacts could these cases possibly have? Hire a bunch of young folks to do contact tracing and isolation support and then gradually open up. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There’s a third strategy which nobody has considered out loud, call it the “Isolate the Vulnerable Strategy”. Since something like 80 percent (?) of those who die are vulnerable, suppose you isolate people like me (like us?) and let the rest of them pass the disease around pretty freely. Let’s say we isolate 150 million people and let the others roam free. We could probably get to herd immunity in the 200 million by December at a cost of a million deaths? That would imply 8 million hospitalizations over six months? Is that tolerable? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Do you remember the good old days when the notion of “death panels” sent the right wing into a frenzy. Hell, now we are talking about “death trenches”. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I dunno. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nick<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Clark University<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Merle Lefkoff<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:52 AM<br><b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject:</b> [FRIAM] Covid and Politics<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Democrats are far more likely to live in counties where the virus has ravaged the community, while Republicans are more likely to live in counties that have been relatively unscathed by the illness, though they are paying an economic price. Counties won by </span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/donald-trump.html" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>President Trump</span></a></span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'> in 2016 have reported just 27 percent of the virus infections and 21 percent of the deaths — even though 45 percent of Americans live in these communities, a New York Times analysis has found.</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.<br>President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy<br><a href="http://emergentdiplomacy.org" target="_blank">emergentdiplomacy.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:merlelefoff@gmail.com" target="_blank">merlelefkoff@gmail.com</a><br>mobile: (303) 859-5609<br>skype: merle.lelfkoff2<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>