3 ms·

It seems like the only way out of this without a huge infection rate is a government mandated stay-at-home period. It probably requires implementing martial law

It seems like the only way out of this without a huge infection rate is a government mandated stay-at-home period. It probably requires implementing martial law. Tech workers going WFH seems like it will be totally ineffectual by itself. 1. Most other workers can't afford to take time off, aren't permitted to, or can't do their jobs remotely. 2. Schools aren't implementing study-at-home yet. 3. There isn't mass testing in place yet. For #1 it seems like we need some kind of massive billion gov disaster insurance bailout to compensate people. And someone still needs to do essential services, so a skeleton crew needs to be paid overtime and tested regularly by health officials. For #2 this could be done tomorrow if it was ordered by health departments. The main downside would be people being forced to stay home from work, but at least this problem can be mitigated by families/friends. For #3 to be implemented at the scale of millions of people, would probably require deploying the US military going up and down streets requesting samples. Anything short of a stay-at-home period seems like it's guaranteed to get us the majority infection rate that will kill millions, mostly our parents and grandparents but a large number of young people too. The damage to the economy of this could be huge. It seems better to overreact now, pay a huge bill ($1+ trillion, if need be), and prevent a massive loss of loss and/or economic depression.

blaser-waffle 7y ago
The US FedGov + state and local authorities have the ability to issue quarantines using local police or other forces. No different than the police enforcing a curfew or other regulations. These have been used several times; my grandmother told me stories about being quarantined in Philadelphia during the 1930s. https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin... There are links at the bottom to specific legislation.
gwright 7y ago
> large number of young people too Most of the info I've seen on this suggest that the young aren't particularly susceptible to the virus. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/children-faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/ch...
- earthtourist 7y ago
  Yeah, that is exciting, we should all hope it turns out to be accurate. But by young, I just mean people age <60, not children. If 10% of the fatalities are people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, or 50s, that could be hundreds of thousands of people.
  - gwright 7y ago
    I see what you are saying now. Wasn't clear from your earlier comment. I hope that the mortality rate turns out to be lower than it appears at the moment (i.e. an undercount of infected people).
dvtrn 7y ago
It probably requires implementing marshal law. Are you serious? Martial law (let’s at least start by spelling it properly) is not something you just throw out there and change a setting to disable once you’re done with.
- earthtourist 7y ago
  There is effectively martial law (yes, I wrote it down wrong, thanks) any time there's a large fire in CA. Police patrol abandoned neighborhoods. And then everything goes back to normal. It wouldn't immediately go Red Dawn. Most people would understand the reasoning and agree with it, however inconvenient it would be. Is it better to let millions die or risk the long-term health of the economy? Why not force people to stay home and watch Netflix for 2 weeks? With exceptions wherever it makes sense.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Can we do better than the false dichotomy of “suspend civil liberties and give the military policing powers or everyone dies”? I ask this as politely as I can: do you know what it is you’re asking for when suggesting the enactment of Martial Law here?
    - earthtourist 7y ago
      Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. 1. If we get to a 70% infection rate, and the mortality rate is (a low) 1%, that's 2+ million dead. 2. A vaccine is likely 18+ months away, which means it won't be here in time. 3. There is no real hope of stopping the spread without drastic measures.
      - dvtrn 7y ago
        Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. There are more options available than the two absurd options you presented. They may require more will from elected leaders and public health officials, but I take serious exception to immediately suggesting that we either suspend civil liberties or let people die. There are several more options available before Martial Law should be allowed in the same room as options still on the table.

blaser-waffle 7y ago

The US FedGov + state and local authorities have the ability to issue quarantines using local police or other forces. No different than the police enforcing a curfew or other regulations. These have been used several times; my grandmother told me stories about being quarantined in Philadelphia during the 1930s. https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin... There are links at the bottom to specific legislation.

gwright 7y ago

> large number of young people too Most of the info I've seen on this suggest that the young aren't particularly susceptible to the virus. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/children-faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/ch...

earthtourist 7y ago
Yeah, that is exciting, we should all hope it turns out to be accurate. But by young, I just mean people age <60, not children. If 10% of the fatalities are people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, or 50s, that could be hundreds of thousands of people.
- gwright 7y ago
  I see what you are saying now. Wasn't clear from your earlier comment. I hope that the mortality rate turns out to be lower than it appears at the moment (i.e. an undercount of infected people).

dvtrn 7y ago

It probably requires implementing marshal law. Are you serious? Martial law (let’s at least start by spelling it properly) is not something you just throw out there and change a setting to disable once you’re done with.

earthtourist 7y ago
There is effectively martial law (yes, I wrote it down wrong, thanks) any time there's a large fire in CA. Police patrol abandoned neighborhoods. And then everything goes back to normal. It wouldn't immediately go Red Dawn. Most people would understand the reasoning and agree with it, however inconvenient it would be. Is it better to let millions die or risk the long-term health of the economy? Why not force people to stay home and watch Netflix for 2 weeks? With exceptions wherever it makes sense.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Can we do better than the false dichotomy of “suspend civil liberties and give the military policing powers or everyone dies”? I ask this as politely as I can: do you know what it is you’re asking for when suggesting the enactment of Martial Law here?
  - earthtourist 7y ago
    Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. 1. If we get to a 70% infection rate, and the mortality rate is (a low) 1%, that's 2+ million dead. 2. A vaccine is likely 18+ months away, which means it won't be here in time. 3. There is no real hope of stopping the spread without drastic measures.
    - dvtrn 7y ago
      Sure, just explain why it's a false dichotomy so I can understand. There are more options available than the two absurd options you presented. They may require more will from elected leaders and public health officials, but I take serious exception to immediately suggesting that we either suspend civil liberties or let people die. There are several more options available before Martial Law should be allowed in the same room as options still on the table.