Yes, but. If we go with the highest realistic-seeming estimates of contagiousness and (and thus lowest of deadliness), then we can say that what NY and Italy s

Yes, but. If we go with the highest realistic-seeming estimates of contagiousness and (and thus lowest of deadliness), then we can say that what NY and Italy saw was something close to worst-case. One reasoned estimate had 20% of Italians -- and almost 40% of Northern Italians -- infected in a six-week period. If that estimate is correct, then even if Italy completely unlocked tomorrow, and held mass hug-ins and cough-ins at every gathering place, it still would probably only get back to as bad as it was 3 weeks ago, and probably only stay there for a month or so. That would be incredibly tragic, but not world endingly so. On the other hand, if you take the maximal estimate the other way, and say that Italy and NY at the peak were detecting 1/3-1/2 of their cases (it kinda can't be more than that), then there is the potential for outbreaks 5x as bad and 10x as long unless they stay socially distant until there is a vaccine in widepsread use -- and even so, hundreds of thousands more will inevitably die along the way. Myself, I think the evidence points to higher contagiousness than this, but the difference does actually matter, even if that still outs us beyond the "threshold of ignorability"