4 ms·

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 becaus

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...).

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...).