6 ms·

So we all lockdown and the rate goes down. It stop staying locked down won't the rate go back up? The only way the rate stays down is if we stop staying locked

So we all lockdown and the rate goes down. It stop staying locked down won't the rate go back up? The only way the rate stays down is if we stop staying locked down is (a) most people already caught it and are immune (b) we develop a vaccine (c) we develop a cure that is easily mass produced and easily distributed. Until one of those happens we're in lockdown. No? And that means 12 to 24 months.

hannasanarion 7y ago
What were holding out for is testing capacity. Once tests are readily available, we can isolate people who catch it and all they people they've been in contact with, and the virus can be held down in quarantine while the rest of society goes on. This strategy has worked in China and South Korea, where life is now slowly resuming, but most other countries haven't caught up with their testing numbers yet. The reason we're all quarantined now is that there's presently no rapid reliable way to tell who needs to be quarantined and who doesn't.
- standardUser 7y ago
  "What were holding out for is testing capacity." Really? Because I have heard of no plan at the federal or state level to implement a wide-scale test and trace program to contain the virus. This seems like a very good idea, but not one being implemented in the US.
  - ygra 7y ago
    The US is far beyond containment at this point. As are many other countries right now, as well. Only when the cases go down again due to successful measures is containment an option again, as you need enough resources to trace contacts and test every potential infection.
    - standardUser 7y ago
      "Only when the cases go down again due to successful measures is containment" We have already taken measures to contain the virus. So why aren't we preparing these needed resources for testing and tracing while the lockdowns are in effect? Two months will pass and we will be no better prepared than we are today because no government in the US is working towards this. The containment will be for nothing, just a temporary measure that will have to be repeated over and over because we aren't even trying to implement a better solution.
mnd999 7y ago
Won’t happen, impossible to enforce.
- asiachick 7y ago
  That might be true and if so well then I guess about 8 million people will die.
  - djrogers 7y ago
    8 million people might be a small number compared to the deaths caused by a 24 month lockdown. There would be virtually no economy to support healthcare, and ‘deaths of despair’ would skyrocket to a point that makes the virus look like child’s play.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      And frankly, it might be a rare example of a social policy where "revolutionaries enact a coup to overturn it" needs to be explicitly considered and risk weighted.
maxerickson 7y ago
We don't know. For most countries, the month before lock down was one where people acted as they always had. The months after lock downs are relaxed will not have people acting the same way, and there is a lot of middle ground between lock down and buffets at international conferences. Enormous deployment of serological tests and rapid RNA tests can also change the way we approach day to day activities.
dboreham 7y ago
It's a bit more nuanced than that. For example people proven to have been already infected can reduce distancing. Some distancing measures vs baseline can be left in place permanently (e.g mask wearing).
- xenonite 7y ago
  It could be theoretically possible to reduce distancing between immune persons. However this creates 1) a social and economic pressure to also get infected and ignore the risks 2) a control problem: Suddenly, many people are outside and socialize. How should the police differ between the two kinds? 3) even after the symptoms have gone away, the virus is still contained, e.g., in the stool. So you would need vast and repeated testing to check who is not infectious and immune.

hannasanarion 7y ago

What were holding out for is testing capacity. Once tests are readily available, we can isolate people who catch it and all they people they've been in contact with, and the virus can be held down in quarantine while the rest of society goes on. This strategy has worked in China and South Korea, where life is now slowly resuming, but most other countries haven't caught up with their testing numbers yet. The reason we're all quarantined now is that there's presently no rapid reliable way to tell who needs to be quarantined and who doesn't.

standardUser 7y ago
"What were holding out for is testing capacity." Really? Because I have heard of no plan at the federal or state level to implement a wide-scale test and trace program to contain the virus. This seems like a very good idea, but not one being implemented in the US.
- ygra 7y ago
  The US is far beyond containment at this point. As are many other countries right now, as well. Only when the cases go down again due to successful measures is containment an option again, as you need enough resources to trace contacts and test every potential infection.
  - standardUser 7y ago
    "Only when the cases go down again due to successful measures is containment" We have already taken measures to contain the virus. So why aren't we preparing these needed resources for testing and tracing while the lockdowns are in effect? Two months will pass and we will be no better prepared than we are today because no government in the US is working towards this. The containment will be for nothing, just a temporary measure that will have to be repeated over and over because we aren't even trying to implement a better solution.

mnd999 7y ago

Won’t happen, impossible to enforce.

asiachick 7y ago
That might be true and if so well then I guess about 8 million people will die.
- djrogers 7y ago
  8 million people might be a small number compared to the deaths caused by a 24 month lockdown. There would be virtually no economy to support healthcare, and ‘deaths of despair’ would skyrocket to a point that makes the virus look like child’s play.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    And frankly, it might be a rare example of a social policy where "revolutionaries enact a coup to overturn it" needs to be explicitly considered and risk weighted.

maxerickson 7y ago

We don't know. For most countries, the month before lock down was one where people acted as they always had. The months after lock downs are relaxed will not have people acting the same way, and there is a lot of middle ground between lock down and buffets at international conferences. Enormous deployment of serological tests and rapid RNA tests can also change the way we approach day to day activities.

dboreham 7y ago

It's a bit more nuanced than that. For example people proven to have been already infected can reduce distancing. Some distancing measures vs baseline can be left in place permanently (e.g mask wearing).

xenonite 7y ago
It could be theoretically possible to reduce distancing between immune persons. However this creates 1) a social and economic pressure to also get infected and ignore the risks 2) a control problem: Suddenly, many people are outside and socialize. How should the police differ between the two kinds? 3) even after the symptoms have gone away, the virus is still contained, e.g., in the stool. So you would need vast and repeated testing to check who is not infectious and immune.