> The full lockdown you are advocating for could cause significantly more devastation than it prevents. The financial hit will be very real, but there can and

> The full lockdown you are advocating for could cause significantly more devastation than it prevents. The financial hit will be very real, but there can and will be mitigations down the line. What do you think are the chances that city, state and federal governments are all just going to let people starve in their homes? For example, the California state government has promised to keep paying teachers and school staff despite school closures. Not to mention companies, organizations and individuals. Many tech companies are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures, for example. As for the devastation that it prevents - well, many unnecessary deaths. The government might be able to pay you a portion of lost wages, give you a loan or reduce your taxes this year, but it can't bring back your loved ones if they die from the coronavirus. > I'd be surprised if a majority of people actually did that There are always going to be idiots and morons. But I think if cases and deaths skyrocket over the next few weeks, as is currently expected, the number of people flouting the quarantine is going to go down pretty dramatically. Not only will people become more aware of the risk, but more businesses will be closed so there's less incentive (e.g. all bars and clubs closed in several states, Starbucks is now takeout-only in some places, attractions like Disneyland closing down etc).