3 ms·

At some point we'll have to adopt a combination of what Boris first said and only a partial lockdown, and I say that as a guy who has voluntarily self-isolated

At some point we'll have to adopt a combination of what Boris first said and only a partial lockdown, and I say that as a guy who has voluntarily self-isolated for almost a week now. There's no way for the whole Western economy to function on made-up money for more than a month, let's say a month and a half. Yes, that will most probably mean triaging people in hospitals, which will probably force elderly people to remain isolated in their homes a little more than the rest of the population, but to be honest I do not see any other solution at this moment.

QuesnayJr 7y ago
I suspect European governments had all settled on that plan, and only the British said it out loud. The only reason they switched to a total lockdown is because the spectacle of mass death at the ICU is too much for the public to bear. The time to take drastic measures was a month ago, when the spread from Italy could have been contained.
- matwood 7y ago
  > The time to take drastic measures was a month ago, when the spread from Italy could have been contained. IMO, I don't think it could have even been contained then. Once this thing left China, the genie was out of the bottle. Now, the rest of the world is just trying to manage the spread best they can by 'flattening the curve.' Which, as you mention, is really going to end up with the plan the Brits said out loud. I wonder how long it will take everyone else to catch on that the Brits plan is happening regardless?
  - QuesnayJr 7y ago
    It was definitely controllable after it left China, as we can see from the fact that countries such as South Korea have managed to control it. European countries were completely unprepared for it, despite the fact that SARS should have been a warning call. (I assume that's why South Korea was ready for it.) It was partially a cultural failure -- I know several Chinese students living in Europe who thought the European reaction was insane -- and partially a government failure. European government should have started reacting months ago stockpiling supplies such as masks and tests. A widespread testing regime should have been in place. Travel back and forth to Italy should have been curtailed much earlier, rather than people traipsing back and forth on holiday, and people who did travel should have been tracked as much as possible.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > The only reason they switched to a total lockdown is because the spectacle of mass death at the ICU is too much for the public to bear. It's mathematics. Assume a country of 100M people, of which roughly 2/3rds have to be infected to achieve herd immunity. That's 66M people. Of these, expect 2M people to die if the mortality rate stays at 3% (at the moment it's 3.4% according to WHO). Now, as no medical system in the world has enough beds, expect that the mortality rate goes through the roof once the ICU beds are full - Italy at the moment is at 10%. This would mean 10 million deaths in the assumed country. Or, scaled to the US: 32 million deaths. "Herd immunity" is mass slaughter on a scale not seen since Mao's "Great Leap" with 18-45M deaths.
  - tomp 7y ago
    Italy's mortality rate is probably overstated by the lack of tests - there's likely many more infected people that don't show up statistics.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      That doesn't matter. Italy has about 3.31 beds per 1000 citizens and these are already way over capacity, so much that doctors have been forced to "triage" patients between whom to save. The Netherlands only have 4.18 beds which isn't much more so with more people being infected thanks to inadequate protection they will be overloaded, sending the mortality through the roof. The US have it worse, they only have 2.89 beds and many people who are sick will still go to work to survive PLUS many won't dare go to the hospital unless they are facing death due to fear of extreme bills so coronavirus has the potential to be a massacre. Plus, unlike Europe where most citizens believe the experts, large parts of the US population takes pride in ignoring science (40% per https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/glaring-partisan-divide-public-attitudes-coronavirus-n1160356 https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/glaring-partisan-di...).
Retric 7y ago
The workforce is largely made up of heathy people under 60, so it’s at minimal risk. My suspicion is gatherings like movie theaters will shut down until a vaccine is available, restaurants are going to swap to carry out, and the sick or elderly are going to be expected to self isolate. That’s still a huge economic hit, but far from the end times. Looking at Wuhan, a total shutdown can dramatically reduce the number of new cases. We can’t really afford that for long, but it buys time to prepare and may be required if things start to fall apart.
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  >> We can’t really afford that for long, but it buys time to prepare and may be required if things start to fall apart. AFAIK Wuhan and South Korea are both at the tail end of their their infection trajectory and they are still not back to normal working situations/environments. I'm still not sure if this will be a short, blunted infection with all the quarantines taking place, or something we have yet to see the top side of. Either way, this is going to crater a ton of small/medium sized businesses. All of the gains the market made in the last few years has been completely erased by this virus.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Two and a half month of draconian quarantine may work, but unless all travel is also shutdown reinfection is a huge risk. A middle ground between doubling every 3 days and total shutdown looks really appealing in that context.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Two and a half month of draconian quarantine may work That will probably be insufficient in duration: ”We [...] show that policy strategies which aim to mitigate the epidemic might halve deaths and reduce peak healthcare demand by two-thirds, but that this will not be enough to prevent health systems being overwhelmed. More intensive, and socially disruptive interventions will therefore be required to suppress transmission to low levels. It is likely such measures – most notably, large scale social distancing – will need to be in place for many months, perhaps until a vaccine becomes available.” https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid19-imperial-rese... > A middle ground between doubling every 3 days and total shutdown looks really appealing in that context. A middle ground between “do nothing” and “don’t do enough to stop the healthcare system from collapsing” sounds really appealing?

QuesnayJr 7y ago

I suspect European governments had all settled on that plan, and only the British said it out loud. The only reason they switched to a total lockdown is because the spectacle of mass death at the ICU is too much for the public to bear. The time to take drastic measures was a month ago, when the spread from Italy could have been contained.

matwood 7y ago
> The time to take drastic measures was a month ago, when the spread from Italy could have been contained. IMO, I don't think it could have even been contained then. Once this thing left China, the genie was out of the bottle. Now, the rest of the world is just trying to manage the spread best they can by 'flattening the curve.' Which, as you mention, is really going to end up with the plan the Brits said out loud. I wonder how long it will take everyone else to catch on that the Brits plan is happening regardless?
- QuesnayJr 7y ago
  It was definitely controllable after it left China, as we can see from the fact that countries such as South Korea have managed to control it. European countries were completely unprepared for it, despite the fact that SARS should have been a warning call. (I assume that's why South Korea was ready for it.) It was partially a cultural failure -- I know several Chinese students living in Europe who thought the European reaction was insane -- and partially a government failure. European government should have started reacting months ago stockpiling supplies such as masks and tests. A widespread testing regime should have been in place. Travel back and forth to Italy should have been curtailed much earlier, rather than people traipsing back and forth on holiday, and people who did travel should have been tracked as much as possible.
mschuster91 7y ago
> The only reason they switched to a total lockdown is because the spectacle of mass death at the ICU is too much for the public to bear. It's mathematics. Assume a country of 100M people, of which roughly 2/3rds have to be infected to achieve herd immunity. That's 66M people. Of these, expect 2M people to die if the mortality rate stays at 3% (at the moment it's 3.4% according to WHO). Now, as no medical system in the world has enough beds, expect that the mortality rate goes through the roof once the ICU beds are full - Italy at the moment is at 10%. This would mean 10 million deaths in the assumed country. Or, scaled to the US: 32 million deaths. "Herd immunity" is mass slaughter on a scale not seen since Mao's "Great Leap" with 18-45M deaths.
- tomp 7y ago
  Italy's mortality rate is probably overstated by the lack of tests - there's likely many more infected people that don't show up statistics.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    That doesn't matter. Italy has about 3.31 beds per 1000 citizens and these are already way over capacity, so much that doctors have been forced to "triage" patients between whom to save. The Netherlands only have 4.18 beds which isn't much more so with more people being infected thanks to inadequate protection they will be overloaded, sending the mortality through the roof. The US have it worse, they only have 2.89 beds and many people who are sick will still go to work to survive PLUS many won't dare go to the hospital unless they are facing death due to fear of extreme bills so coronavirus has the potential to be a massacre. Plus, unlike Europe where most citizens believe the experts, large parts of the US population takes pride in ignoring science (40% per https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/glaring-partisan-divide-public-attitudes-coronavirus-n1160356 https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/glaring-partisan-di...).

Retric 7y ago

The workforce is largely made up of heathy people under 60, so it’s at minimal risk. My suspicion is gatherings like movie theaters will shut down until a vaccine is available, restaurants are going to swap to carry out, and the sick or elderly are going to be expected to self isolate. That’s still a huge economic hit, but far from the end times. Looking at Wuhan, a total shutdown can dramatically reduce the number of new cases. We can’t really afford that for long, but it buys time to prepare and may be required if things start to fall apart.

at-fates-hands 7y ago
>> We can’t really afford that for long, but it buys time to prepare and may be required if things start to fall apart. AFAIK Wuhan and South Korea are both at the tail end of their their infection trajectory and they are still not back to normal working situations/environments. I'm still not sure if this will be a short, blunted infection with all the quarantines taking place, or something we have yet to see the top side of. Either way, this is going to crater a ton of small/medium sized businesses. All of the gains the market made in the last few years has been completely erased by this virus.
- Retric 7y ago
  Two and a half month of draconian quarantine may work, but unless all travel is also shutdown reinfection is a huge risk. A middle ground between doubling every 3 days and total shutdown looks really appealing in that context.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Two and a half month of draconian quarantine may work That will probably be insufficient in duration: ”We [...] show that policy strategies which aim to mitigate the epidemic might halve deaths and reduce peak healthcare demand by two-thirds, but that this will not be enough to prevent health systems being overwhelmed. More intensive, and socially disruptive interventions will therefore be required to suppress transmission to low levels. It is likely such measures – most notably, large scale social distancing – will need to be in place for many months, perhaps until a vaccine becomes available.” https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid19-imperial-rese... > A middle ground between doubling every 3 days and total shutdown looks really appealing in that context. A middle ground between “do nothing” and “don’t do enough to stop the healthcare system from collapsing” sounds really appealing?