3 ms·

China had people dying in the streets, but we're now at the point where the quarantine has had effect, so it's successful mitigation. They also initially quaran

China had people dying in the streets, but we're now at the point where the quarantine has had effect, so it's successful mitigation. They also initially quarantined only the area of the initial outbreak (Wuhan), and only later expanded lockdown measures to most of the country (covering 800 million people at the peak, IIRC). And of course the quarantine leaked enough that the infection spread to the entire world. But sure, thank you CPC, a model response from a model government.

vkou 7y ago
> And of course the quarantine leaked enough that the infection spread to the entire world. It spread prior to the quarantine being put in place. > at this point it's run its course, so it's successful mitigation Only ~80,000 people out of 11,000,000 in Wuhan were infected. For a disease this contageous, that we don't have herd immunity for, that's hardly 'run its course'.
- lihaciudaniel 7y ago
  You underestimate how wrong you can be. Did it count the undetected cases. You're right that's hardly "run its course"
- Camillo 7y ago
  I'm not saying the quarantine had no effect. What I mean is that there is a time delay between when the quarantine is put in place and when you see the detected infections start decreasing. China is now at that point, but it's like all commenters have suddenly forgotten what happened before.
Camillo 7y ago
To be honest I don't really want to criticize China here, but rather the slipshod way in which countries are being compared. Wuhan has been in lockdown for almost two months now. Italy's national quarantine is only a week old. The number of detected active infections is delayed with respect to the actual number of infections, so it takes time for the effects of a quarantine to be visible in the data. What is the point of taking two countries at different points in the curve and presenting one as a shining success story and the other as the worst-case scenario?

vkou 7y ago

> And of course the quarantine leaked enough that the infection spread to the entire world. It spread prior to the quarantine being put in place. > at this point it's run its course, so it's successful mitigation Only ~80,000 people out of 11,000,000 in Wuhan were infected. For a disease this contageous, that we don't have herd immunity for, that's hardly 'run its course'.

lihaciudaniel 7y ago
You underestimate how wrong you can be. Did it count the undetected cases. You're right that's hardly "run its course"
Camillo 7y ago
I'm not saying the quarantine had no effect. What I mean is that there is a time delay between when the quarantine is put in place and when you see the detected infections start decreasing. China is now at that point, but it's like all commenters have suddenly forgotten what happened before.

Camillo 7y ago

To be honest I don't really want to criticize China here, but rather the slipshod way in which countries are being compared. Wuhan has been in lockdown for almost two months now. Italy's national quarantine is only a week old. The number of detected active infections is delayed with respect to the actual number of infections, so it takes time for the effects of a quarantine to be visible in the data. What is the point of taking two countries at different points in the curve and presenting one as a shining success story and the other as the worst-case scenario?