Re: risk zones

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Fri, 06 March 2020 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE923A0987 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 07:45:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pl6sD1KsXPXw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 07:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 521D13A0977 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 07:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id 026FjeO8027208 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:45:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 10:45:32 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: risk zones
Message-ID: <20200306154532.GA26540@gsp.org>
References: <158344386661.14598.13307571424986389922@ietfa.amsl.com> <4295F611-DDB6-4BCB-AFF3-B7F313C6C9A6@sobco.com> <19D579B6-E81E-47BE-9881-6DFA3D5173D1@ietf.org> <1866d5b0-4c83-9c9d-4a17-55153024a872@gmail.com> <c94c6ecc-598f-c1c5-f14a-7105031671d0@gmail.com> <CAAuWHC+2zPLUUhhsCfHBowJchjU6fqFtugkmepbN6+MrrcKrRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwj2HHXPUHYv7wKDXwfzvHJsQg9wtoJqnWYZEfdutELRVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwj2HHXPUHYv7wKDXwfzvHJsQg9wtoJqnWYZEfdutELRVA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2TKvdw1WbcdtyfRcbRQc4zml57Q>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 15:45:37 -0000

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 09:58:24AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> That has absolutely no effect on the spread in the West where we have taken
> none of those measures. 

Related to this point, I fumbled my way through a scholarly discussion
of COVID-19 as best as a layman can, and came away with this point: with
a disease that has a long incubation period, the reported cases tell us
where it has *been*, not where it *is*.  I'm terribly oversimplifying,
of course, but this is consistent with the observations being reported
by WHO et.al.   And it means, among other things, that delayed reactions
may be much too late.

---rsk