The paper does not acknowledge the limitations of the Imperial model - with dangerous policy implications
Dear Editor
The Imperial model's many limitations - e.g. as noted in Shen, Taleb, Bar-Yam in March 2020 (link below) are not referenced in this paper - a serious omission.
This paper seems to reinforce the dangerous polarisation of the present public debate between 'lockdown' vs 'herd immunity'. The debate ignores the strategy which has had proven success in S Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, etc - namely, 'find, test, trace, isolate, support ' - without lockdown. The model is not able to simulate this kind of contact finding and isolating.
As Chen et al note 'Focusing on details but using incorrect assumptions, makes for bad policy advice. Where lives are at stake, it is essential for science to adhere to higher standards'
Rapid Response:
The paper does not acknowledge the limitations of the Imperial model - with dangerous policy implications
Dear Editor
The Imperial model's many limitations - e.g. as noted in Shen, Taleb, Bar-Yam in March 2020 (link below) are not referenced in this paper - a serious omission.
This paper seems to reinforce the dangerous polarisation of the present public debate between 'lockdown' vs 'herd immunity'. The debate ignores the strategy which has had proven success in S Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, etc - namely, 'find, test, trace, isolate, support ' - without lockdown. The model is not able to simulate this kind of contact finding and isolating.
As Chen et al note 'Focusing on details but using incorrect assumptions, makes for bad policy advice. Where lives are at stake, it is essential for science to adhere to higher standards'
Chen Shen, Taleb, Bar-Yam
https://www.academia.edu/42242357/Review_of_Ferguson_et_al_Impact_of_non...
(Covid science discussion group
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gaVwqDAHwhMzvq6GW45hahc6Ky7gIj8F/view?u...)
Competing interests: No competing interests