3 ms·

It's worth pointing out that Italy is about 2 weeks further along in infection spread than the UK and Spain a week. Italy's had 1800 death, Spain 300, UK 30. T

It's worth pointing out that Italy is about 2 weeks further along in infection spread than the UK and Spain a week. Italy's had 1800 death, Spain 300, UK 30. They're all roughly the same size population (60, 50, 70 million) As I've said in other threads on this, I would assume that the earlier you lock down, the longer you have to stay locked down. Or you risk a second peak. There's a balancing act, given that it's not possible now to stop the spread, only slow it. Lock down too early and you do a lot of damage to the economy and by extension the country. Lock down too late and people die from lack of care.

sgt101 7y ago
Additionally it is not clear yet that the interventions in Italy and Spain have worked. It will not be clear for some months in fact.
zozbot234 7y ago
> I would assume that the earlier you lock down, the longer you have to stay locked down. I would not assume that at all. Containment is still possible in a looser sense; many places in both Italy and Spain may end up being disease-free in a shorter period of time by locking down things early, and then they can contribute healthcare resources to places where the disease is more widespread, or even be put under some sort of protective "reverse" quarantine with less strict measures.
- mattmanser 7y ago
  And then you've got to lock down the next region, which re-infects the first region or you've got to keep the lock-down there happening, and so on, and so on. Did you not think this through? Essentially the whole things a massive balancing act, allow a certain amount of infections, but not too many the health service gets overwhelmed. Even China's now getting more infections from outside than in, which is only going to grow. The consensus is that you can't stop it now. So your plan might be an even worse idea, a cascading lock down, that lasts even longer. The only hope being summer stops it like flu, but then you're left with a potential resurgence in autumn and even more lock downs.

sgt101 7y ago

Additionally it is not clear yet that the interventions in Italy and Spain have worked. It will not be clear for some months in fact.

zozbot234 7y ago

> I would assume that the earlier you lock down, the longer you have to stay locked down. I would not assume that at all. Containment is still possible in a looser sense; many places in both Italy and Spain may end up being disease-free in a shorter period of time by locking down things early, and then they can contribute healthcare resources to places where the disease is more widespread, or even be put under some sort of protective "reverse" quarantine with less strict measures.

mattmanser 7y ago
And then you've got to lock down the next region, which re-infects the first region or you've got to keep the lock-down there happening, and so on, and so on. Did you not think this through? Essentially the whole things a massive balancing act, allow a certain amount of infections, but not too many the health service gets overwhelmed. Even China's now getting more infections from outside than in, which is only going to grow. The consensus is that you can't stop it now. So your plan might be an even worse idea, a cascading lock down, that lasts even longer. The only hope being summer stops it like flu, but then you're left with a potential resurgence in autumn and even more lock downs.