I don’t see how you can say both that it will “almost never” be the case that NYC will “hit 1% cumulative incidence after global 1% cumulative incidence” but also that it would surprise you if you can get to where your monitored cities lead global prevalence?
Sorry, this is poorly phrased by me. I meant that it would surprise me if there’s much benefit from adding a few additional cities.
Sorry, this is poorly phrased by me. I meant that it would surprise me if there’s much benefit from adding a few additional cities.
Possibly! That would certainly be a convenient finding (from my perspective) if it did end up working out that way.