4 ms·
It seems like there are two possible outcomes: 1. We realize that the shutdown had a small effect, because a) the virus is already widespread due to easy trans
by brenden2 6y ago
It seems like there are two possible outcomes:
1. We realize that the shutdown had a small effect, because a) the virus is already widespread due to easy transmission and b) the mortality rate is much lower than previously thought. Thus, we don't need to continue the shutdown.
2. The virus turns out to be as bad as feared, and things get much worse in Sweden (and elsewhere). The shutdown needs to continue indefinitely.
I'm leaning toward #1, but I think it's still too early to rule out #2. If we are living in the first scenario, I wonder how long it will take for the general public to realize that's the case.
I do think that a combination of political jockeying and mass hysteria have placed us into the position we're in now. If that's true, then the worst thing about this virus will certainly be the economic impact which has a number of far reaching effects.
- davidw 6y agoHere's an actual science-based report detailing how we can start to reopen with proper testing and tracing. I think Germany is doing something along these lines? https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NGA-Report.pdf https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NGA-Report.pd... It's by the national governors association in the US and seems pretty well done.
- microtherion 6y agoNew York City is increasingly providing a lower bound for mortality rate in a population with relatively high infection rates, and it's not all that low. You would have to postulate some mechanism like Herd Immunity Through Blondness to expect a substantially better outcome for Sweden.