3 ms·
Nah, a stay at home order is to flatten the curve. A lockdown is to burnout the virus. If you lockdown for about 2x the time the virus incubates and people fo
by segmondy 7y ago
Nah, a stay at home order is to flatten the curve. A lockdown is to burnout the virus. If you lockdown for about 2x the time the virus incubates and people follow the lockdown. You can snuff the virus out. At the beginning of the lockdown, assume someone just got it and lives at home with others no symptoms but they spread it to other's that live at home, assume those don't have symptoms and they stay in for the recommended quarantine period, then the virus should have subsided. In the case of sars-cov-2 2weeks+2weeks. So 4 weeks minimum, add 1 or 2 more for safety measure. If people are sick enough to go to the hospital, they get treated, contact tracing is done. It's tough, but if everyone said home for 6 weeks. Absolutely no contact, the virus will burn out since it won't have any new hosts to infect. China didn't do their lockdown to flatten the curve, they did it to snuff out the virus, that's the same strategy India is attempting.
- solarkraft 7y agoSnuffing out the virus would be a pretty impressive feat and it might just work. It might even be awesome for a while - but wouldn't you have to completely eliminate any potential vectors for the virus to get into the country again? Does that really mean virtually no immigration? Even with rigorous testing, if there's a single false negative, wouldn't that completely eliminate the gains of having gotten rid of the virus?