The microblog: 2020.12.18 17:03:13

2020.12.18 17:03:13 (1339964445523492864) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Peter Todd (@peterktodd)" (1339749503071608832):

The Canadian government was already claiming to be doing "very rigorous contact tracing" in late March, and it simply wasn't true: Meanwhile they were screwing up most of the toolbox: e.g., actively discouraging mask use. Must be the weather's fault, eh?


2020.12.16 23:49:20 (1339341871546503169) from "Peter Todd (@peterktodd)":

So basically you think a good example of successful lockdown is a very warm, poor, country that is obviously not doing anywhere near as much COVID-19 surveillance as necessary to reliably catch all cases... Where is your evidence that those tests are "sensibly deployed"?

2020.12.17 05:35:25 (1339428966831071233) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Peter Todd (@peterktodd)" (1339341871546503169):

You keep focusing on lockdowns, but most countries setting the goal at eradication have limited the use of lockdowns and have deployed a large toolbox of better-bang-for-the-buck techniques to successfully keep R down. For Thailand's testing strategy, see

2020.12.17 06:07:36 (1339437063603511298) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

For typical American (and Canadian and so on) readers it's educational to study this document, which spells out tons of sensible things that were already in Thailand's testing strategy early in 2020, and it's embarrassing to see that the U.S. couldn't manage most of these things.

2020.12.18 02:49:07 (1339749503071608832) from "Peter Todd (@peterktodd)":

Huh? Canada (and many other countries) were doing those things. That's just basic "test and trace". It's just not effective enough to catch close enough to 100% of cases to eliminate COVID-19. Canada's tracing infrastructure became overwhelmed and they gave up.