2020.12.11 16:36:07 (1337420909032816642) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Peter Todd (@peterktodd)" (1337043331122126852):
I gave details of the Australian example, and pointed to a page whose graphs make it easy to see more examples. _Temporary_ reduction of virus prevalence isn't enough; that's exactly the point! The successful countries set the target at eradication, and don't let up until then.
2020.12.10 04:44:03 (1336879322041180160) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Peter Todd (@peterktodd)" (1336769239676555265):
Apply enough tools to move R to, say, 0.5; serious lockdowns can do this by themselves, but combining several lower-cost tools is smarter. Case numbers go down. Then: (1) Idiotically declare mission accomplished. Or: (2) Keep applying the same tools until the virus disappears.
2020.12.10 05:06:12 (1336884896313184256) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
Some of the basic tools for reducing R, such as testing and tracing and quarantines, become _even more effective_ as case numbers drop (because resources are allocated better), so keeping R far below 1 becomes easier and easier as the weeks go by, and then the virus is gone.
2020.12.10 05:21:16 (1336888687724883968) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
A properly designed control system looks like this: "Consistently test. Aim for the positives each week to be below half of what they were the previous week. If they aren't, ramp up interventions until we've caught up." It doesn't look like this: "Aim for 3% positives each week."
2020.12.10 15:35:45 (1337043331122126852) from "Peter Todd (@peterktodd)":
Again, what you claimed was "One country after another has successfully eradicated COVID-19 cases; the U.S. reacts with ignorance and denial." You still haven't been able to back that claim up with actual examples. Mere reduction is not enough.