I think mass transit is a big reason why places like New York are getting hit hard and not Phnom Penh

I really believe that the real fatality rate is simply most likely in the same range as influenza. The real mortality rate is also most likely the same as influenza when comparing populations which aren't vaccinated against influenza. It explains many more inconsistencies above cambodia, like the Diamond Princess and Iceland.

jah steu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:04 am More on topic... many locals seem convinced that a state of emergency will be declared as soon as it has passed through the various stages of law and been signed off by the king or his proxy.
But why? Many businesses have been closed or restricted already, most people are staying at home as much as possible. They are wearing masks when going out. Cases are currently low and not growing exponentially.
How would declaring a state of emergency and/or imposing a complete lockdown improve the situation further?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When did the people in power ever did anything but strengthening their grip on power and their own interest at the cost of their people.
Sometime they are scared of their people. Sometime interests of both align. Otherwise the people suffer.
With the current fear-mongering, you can forget about the first one, give a thought on how much the people interest aligns with HS interest.

If I was him I would roll out the military in the street, impose a lockdown and put an end for good to the opposition, one influential guy after another, in the discrecy of empty street I would isolate them after claiming they caught the virus and would dispose of them and blame it on the virus. I'd be glad to see a couple desperate hungry people revolt and would shoot a couple of them in the head. And will end up with less opposition, and a good example to what happens when someone revolts in the safest way possible, as a couple of hungry desperate scared people don't make for dangerous revolts against my power, and most of the rest wouldn't participate to any revolt even if they hate me as they would be too busy being scared of the virus and dealing with the hardship of the lockdown.
This does not account for international relationship, but China for one wouldn't even blink.

The extreme nature of my example makes it unlikely, but you get the type of mechanics that could make a lockdown beneficial to HS

IraHayes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:17 am Never let a crisis go to waste eh?

The throne controls the one who sits in it, more so than the opposite. Those who refuses to play by the game gives precious ammunition to their enemy, so that the ones who ends up on the thrones are always the ones who bows to the rules of power.

jah steu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:04 am More on topic... many locals seem convinced that a state of emergency will be declared as soon as it has passed through the various stages of law and been signed off by the king or his proxy.
But why? Many businesses have been closed or restricted already, most people are staying at home as much as possible. They are wearing masks when going out. Cases are currently low and not growing exponentially.
How would declaring a state of emergency and/or imposing a complete lockdown improve the situation further?

The lock down is inevitable if we look at it from a game theory perspective.

Player 1 (the government) there are two possibilities:

1. lock down or
2 .no lock down.

Player 2 (the virus) there are two possibilities.

3. More vigilant in Cambodia than current data suggests.
4. As vigilant or less than current data suggests.

Look at each combination:

1 + 3 = slows the outbreak of the virus, reduces chains of transmission, reduces peak load on health system (political consequences == 6/10)
1 + 4 = virus is contained, current chains of transmission are extinguished, internally life + economy return to near normal (political consequences == 2/10)
2 + 3 = virus spreads out of control, many deaths, huge economic damage (political consequences == 10/10)
3 + 4 = virus continues to spread at low levels, social distancing restrictions remain in place until vaccine found, economy running at 50% (political consequences 6/10)

The potential upside of being one of the first countries to get past this == HUGE
The potential downside of under responding == HUGE
The potential downside of over responding == MINIMAL

PLUS: under responding can be proven, while over responding can't be proven. If the outbreak never happens here, then the government can say it was because of the strong response.

starkmonster wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:53 am The lock down is inevitable if we look at it from a game theory perspective.

I like your approach to the question, it makes for a good analysis for those who view the virus as more dangerous than I do.

starkmonster wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:53 am

jah steu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:04 am More on topic... many locals seem convinced that a state of emergency will be declared as soon as it has passed through the various stages of law and been signed off by the king or his proxy.
But why? Many businesses have been closed or restricted already, most people are staying at home as much as possible. They are wearing masks when going out. Cases are currently low and not growing exponentially.
How would declaring a state of emergency and/or imposing a complete lockdown improve the situation further?

The lock down is inevitable if we look at it from a game theory perspective.

Player 1 (the government) there are two possibilities:

1. lock down or
2 .no lock down.

Player 2 (the virus) there are two possibilities.

3. More vigilant in Cambodia than current data suggests.
4. As vigilant or less than current data suggests.

Look at each combination:

1 + 3 = slows the outbreak of the virus, reduces chains of transmission, reduces peak load on health system (political consequences == 6/10)
1 + 4 = virus is contained, current chains of transmission are extinguished, internally life + economy return to near normal (political consequences == 2/10)
2 + 3 = virus spreads out of control, many deaths, huge economic damage (political consequences == 10/10)
3 + 4 = virus continues to spread at low levels, social distancing restrictions remain in place until vaccine found, economy running at 50% (political consequences 6/10)

The potential upside of being one of the first countries to get past this == HUGE
The potential downside of under responding == HUGE
The potential downside of over responding == MINIMAL

PLUS: under responding can be proven, while over responding can't be proven. If the outbreak never happens here, then the government can say it was because of the strong response.

Nice approach, except that 3+4 and 1+2 are no valid combination in the game theory.

<edit>
I guess 3+4 should be read as 2+4
</edit>

Yes, that should have been 2+4

starkmonster wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:53 am

jah steu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:04 am More on topic... many locals seem convinced that a state of emergency will be declared as soon as it has passed through the various stages of law and been signed off by the king or his proxy.
But why? Many businesses have been closed or restricted already, most people are staying at home as much as possible. They are wearing masks when going out. Cases are currently low and not growing exponentially.
How would declaring a state of emergency and/or imposing a complete lockdown improve the situation further?

The lock down is inevitable if we look at it from a game theory perspective.

Player 1 (the government) there are two possibilities:

1. lock down or
2 .no lock down.

Player 2 (the virus) there are two possibilities.

3. More vigilant in Cambodia than current data suggests.
4. As vigilant or less than current data suggests.

Look at each combination:

1 + 3 = slows the outbreak of the virus, reduces chains of transmission, reduces peak load on health system (political consequences == 6/10)
1 + 4 = virus is contained, current chains of transmission are extinguished, internally life + economy return to near normal (political consequences == 2/10)
2 + 3 = virus spreads out of control, many deaths, huge economic damage (political consequences == 10/10)
3 + 4 = virus continues to spread at low levels, social distancing restrictions remain in place until vaccine found, economy running at 50% (political consequences 6/10)

The potential upside of being one of the first countries to get past this == HUGE
The potential downside of under responding == HUGE
The potential downside of over responding == MINIMAL

PLUS: under responding can be proven, while over responding can't be proven. If the outbreak never happens here, then the government can say it was because of the strong response.

Interesting, but your numerical values are completely wrong.

SIR models show there are only 3 possible ways this virus ends:

1) A vaccine is developed
2) 90+% end up infected and immune
3) Technology is developed to test and isolate anyone, even asymptomatic, with 24 hours of infection.

1 and 3 are many months away in the best of circumstances.

The lockdown merely spreads the curve, but doesn't end until 2 is achieved. It is a fantasy to think you lock down for a few weeks and starve the virus to death. That is not what happens. This thing is much too virulent for that. Any amount of movement, and some is necessary for people to eat, will result in the virus spreading. The spread can be slowed, but not stopped.

So a lockdown situation, unlike what some believe, is going to last for months. The political consequences are going to be much more serious than the political consequences of letting the virus take its course. So you need to reverse 1+3 and 2+3 to be accurate.

If you want to be the first country to get past this, then no lockdown and herd immunity is the way to go. No response is the optimal solution under this scenario. Since Cambodia has basically no medical services to speak of, and the only value of the lockdown is to spread the curve to help medical services cope, well multiplication by zero comes into play here. Whether it is 1 patient or 1000 patients, Cambodia's medical capabilities are unable to handle it.

Whether that is politically acceptable to the outside world or not is the real question.

Again, the lock down does not stop people from being infected. 90+% will be infected lockdown or no lockdown if the pathogen is as virulent as reported. You simply spread the deaths out over time with a lockdown, giving your medical facilities a chance to help those who need ventilators to survive.

Lock down is probably the wrong move in Cambodia, as sad as that is to report. It is simply not medically advanced enough for a lockdown to make a difference. So if you advocate for a lockdown, you are advocating to kill people slowly while killing your economy as well. No lockdown means kill people quickly and restore the economy. One is politically correct and acceptable internationally, but ultimately futile. The other is politically unacceptable and will result in being maligned internationally, but probably a better solution.