I don't think he's saying it's likely to just be a blip, just that it could
be a blip. And because of that "Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact."
His no big deal case relies on the assumption"that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected". I doubt anyone is taking that bet. I don't think he is when he says "The most valuable piece of information for answering those questions would be to know the current prevalence of the infection in a random sample of a population and to repeat this exercise at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections. Sadly, that’s information we don’t have."
|
(
In response to this post by beergutvt)
Posted: 03/18/2020 at 2:05PM