8 ms·

>6 days later, we're at over 6000 infections, the country is in total lock down. Similar anecdote here. My SO texted me earlier this week saying how she will

>6 days later, we're at over 6000 infections, the country is in total lock down. Similar anecdote here. My SO texted me earlier this week saying how she will be taking the train from Madrid to Barcelona to go back to her family. She figured it will be empty on Sunday at 6 am. I have been following the situation evolve in Italy and told her to get on the train right away and leave immediately before it gets worse. Luckily, the next day she was on the train. The lockdowns started happening shortly afterwards.

joe_the_user 7y ago
Shame on her People should stay where they are. Lockdown is not a disaster. People fleeing lockdown are literally the carriers of this disaster. Stay where you are, wait. Don't travel. Don't fight the locdown. Lockdown is the current, appropriate course of action. A very effective lockdown can eliminate the infection in, well, however long it took to eliminate it in Wuhan. Fleeing the lockdown now is just going to another area that is going to be on lockdown later on anyway.
- warent 7y ago
  I didn't see them say anything about "fleeing a lockdown." She was fleeing a potentially life-threatening virus in a scary situation in order to be with her family. That isn't so hard to grok, and obviously she felt she was making the right decision. Shaming someone for looking for security and safety in a scary situation (i.e. for being human) is just absurd.
  - stan_rogers 7y ago
    Shaming somebody for potentially spreading a disease, on the other hand, is precisely the sort of thing that needs to happen in a situation like this. Epidemics don't give a tinker's damn for anyone's feelings.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - hatenberg 7y ago
    We elect governments to protect us from our own fight-or-flight response which is not a good thing in modern society
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    She was fleeing a potentially life-threatening virus in a scary situation in order to be with her family. I hate to put this harshly but... She may well be fleeing with a life threatening virus that will kill her family. This has happened already, even documented, in China. We can't look to our own comfort at this point. All my family visits are postponed and my food is mostly stocked up. And it's a hard situation where we won't all make the best choices but still want to pressure everyone to make the appropriate choices.
    - fuzzfactor 7y ago
      >She was fleeing a potentially life-threatening virus in a scary situation in order to be with her family. True. >She may well be fleeing with a life threatening virus that will kill her family. And true.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- terramex 7y ago
  People should stay where they are. Lockdown is not a disaster. People fleeing lockdown are literally the carriers of this disaster. There will be test of this thesis in Poland soon. As government closed down universities, some of them told students that they have to vacate their dormitories and go back home (dormitories are usually occupied by students from countryside and smaller cities), and it caused massive migration. It is already confirmed that students in my city were infected for two weeks, but is not known yet how widespread it was. To make situation worse, some dormitories are now being turned into quarantine hotels, so students are told to come back and take their belongings with them (initially they were told they can leave their stuff behind).
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Universities in the United States are doing the same thing. Stanford, for instance, is evicting its dorm population.
- uoylj 7y ago
  Missing the point completely. Being in lockdown for an extended period requires preparation. Not everyone has the ability to stay where they currently are when the lockdown comes.. some are stuck in hotels or airbnbs for example. Saying you should lock yourself down where ever you happen to be before the lockdown is even enacted is dumb.
- arvinsim 7y ago
  To think that with the modern internet, there should be less incentive to be physically present.
- fuzzfactor 7y ago
  >Fleeing the lockdown now is just going to another area that is going to be on lockdown later on anyway. This is readily recognized. And this can be motivation enough to relocate to a chosen area for upcoming lockdown, while some choice is still possible.
riquito 7y ago
There's no "luckily". It's the exact behaviour that spread the virus all over Italy. If you love your family and you have some sense of responsibility your duty is to stay where you are for a while. You can embrace your family in the near future.
- adrianN 7y ago
  "For a while" is likely until we have a vaccine and produced enough of it to build up herd immunity. That probably takes a year or more.
  - NullPrefix 7y ago
    Is it worse than catching the virus during your trip and bringing it to the family?
    - adrianN 7y ago
      No, but for some people it might be worse if you also take into account the probability of catching the virus at this stage. Even in the worst-affected areas at most single-digit percentages of the population have the virus.
      - fuzzfactor 7y ago
        And quarantine restricts unexposed confinees to locations having these single-digit percentages which are overwhelmingly higher than the least-affected areas. It is expected that even with thorough reliable testing and rapid clearance of the non-contagious from confinement, the spread among previously unexposed confinees would be vastly greater than among the unconfined, or further the _isolated clean_.

joe_the_user 7y ago

Shame on her People should stay where they are. Lockdown is not a disaster. People fleeing lockdown are literally the carriers of this disaster. Stay where you are, wait. Don't travel. Don't fight the locdown. Lockdown is the current, appropriate course of action. A very effective lockdown can eliminate the infection in, well, however long it took to eliminate it in Wuhan. Fleeing the lockdown now is just going to another area that is going to be on lockdown later on anyway.

warent 7y ago
I didn't see them say anything about "fleeing a lockdown." She was fleeing a potentially life-threatening virus in a scary situation in order to be with her family. That isn't so hard to grok, and obviously she felt she was making the right decision. Shaming someone for looking for security and safety in a scary situation (i.e. for being human) is just absurd.
- stan_rogers 7y ago
  Shaming somebody for potentially spreading a disease, on the other hand, is precisely the sort of thing that needs to happen in a situation like this. Epidemics don't give a tinker's damn for anyone's feelings.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hatenberg 7y ago
  We elect governments to protect us from our own fight-or-flight response which is not a good thing in modern society
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  She was fleeing a potentially life-threatening virus in a scary situation in order to be with her family. I hate to put this harshly but... She may well be fleeing with a life threatening virus that will kill her family. This has happened already, even documented, in China. We can't look to our own comfort at this point. All my family visits are postponed and my food is mostly stocked up. And it's a hard situation where we won't all make the best choices but still want to pressure everyone to make the appropriate choices.
  - fuzzfactor 7y ago
    >She was fleeing a potentially life-threatening virus in a scary situation in order to be with her family. True. >She may well be fleeing with a life threatening virus that will kill her family. And true.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
terramex 7y ago
People should stay where they are. Lockdown is not a disaster. People fleeing lockdown are literally the carriers of this disaster. There will be test of this thesis in Poland soon. As government closed down universities, some of them told students that they have to vacate their dormitories and go back home (dormitories are usually occupied by students from countryside and smaller cities), and it caused massive migration. It is already confirmed that students in my city were infected for two weeks, but is not known yet how widespread it was. To make situation worse, some dormitories are now being turned into quarantine hotels, so students are told to come back and take their belongings with them (initially they were told they can leave their stuff behind).
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Universities in the United States are doing the same thing. Stanford, for instance, is evicting its dorm population.
uoylj 7y ago
Missing the point completely. Being in lockdown for an extended period requires preparation. Not everyone has the ability to stay where they currently are when the lockdown comes.. some are stuck in hotels or airbnbs for example. Saying you should lock yourself down where ever you happen to be before the lockdown is even enacted is dumb.
arvinsim 7y ago
To think that with the modern internet, there should be less incentive to be physically present.
fuzzfactor 7y ago
>Fleeing the lockdown now is just going to another area that is going to be on lockdown later on anyway. This is readily recognized. And this can be motivation enough to relocate to a chosen area for upcoming lockdown, while some choice is still possible.

riquito 7y ago

There's no "luckily". It's the exact behaviour that spread the virus all over Italy. If you love your family and you have some sense of responsibility your duty is to stay where you are for a while. You can embrace your family in the near future.

adrianN 7y ago
"For a while" is likely until we have a vaccine and produced enough of it to build up herd immunity. That probably takes a year or more.
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  Is it worse than catching the virus during your trip and bringing it to the family?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    No, but for some people it might be worse if you also take into account the probability of catching the virus at this stage. Even in the worst-affected areas at most single-digit percentages of the population have the virus.
    - fuzzfactor 7y ago
      And quarantine restricts unexposed confinees to locations having these single-digit percentages which are overwhelmingly higher than the least-affected areas. It is expected that even with thorough reliable testing and rapid clearance of the non-contagious from confinement, the spread among previously unexposed confinees would be vastly greater than among the unconfined, or further the _isolated clean_.