Not a soccer match, but in their approaches to controlling COVID-19, which despite being close to Country Ground Zero (if you know what that is, and I think you do) appear to have been more successful than a lot of other countries, at least relatively speaking, in controlling spread even though their approaches are very different. This below is from a letter in The Times (of London) this morning. Would be interested if other OBs have additional factual information on these two countries’ approaches:
South Korea and Japan -- two countries with polar opposite approaches to dealing with the coronavirus crisis -- could have been increasing over the past 22 days with precisely the same exponent (the time it takes for the number of deaths to double -- about two weeks -- has been the same for both). This could have implications for the response to the coronavirus crisis.
The central question is: what are the important factors in keeping the death rate down? Is massive testing (as in South Korea) important? What if policy concentrates instead on keeping the most vulnerable people out of ICU wards (as in both Japan and South Korea) with the help of cultural or social mores, social distancing etc., but using lockdowns sparingly (as in Japan)?
The central question is: what are the important factors in keeping the death rate down? Is massive testing (as in South Korea) important? What if policy concentrates instead on keeping the most vulnerable people out of ICU wards (as in both Japan and South Korea) with the help of cultural or social mores, social distancing etc., but using lockdowns sparingly (as in Japan)?
