[phillipseamore]

Interestingly Iceland, which has most of it's infections from Italy (and the other Alpine countries), designated those countries as areas with high risk of infection long before those countries would admit it, is not looking into these kinds of closures. I understand that they request people not to gather in large groups, on a completely voluntary basis and anyone is free to self-quarantine with pay or benefits.

The consensus over there is that the disruptions would be worse than an increase in infections. Closing schools and other limits would only delay the infections and they would likely become unmanageable when limits are lifted. The emphasis is on protecting those that are most likely to get seriously sick, and not limiting the number of infections of those that are not at (high) risk. They also consider that if those that have been infected build immunity, it would be better (and I'm paraphrasing) "to just get it over with."

On Friday they will start testing around the country to get a better understanding of the infection rate, especially whether it's already prevalent in the community. This will be on an unprecedented scale, as they expect to test >2% of the population. The expected result is that the infection is already widely distributed in the community.

[greedo]

This seems like an insane policy based on what we know about sars2-cov and the demographics of Iceland. Over 25% of the population (95K) is in the most vulnerable age group. If just 1% of that cohort becomes sick, you'll swamp the entire healthcare system. And that's excluding the effect on the other 75%. Just because they're risk is lower doesn't mean they won't need hospital care.

[kgwgk]

30 intensive care beds may prove insufficient if there is widespread infection. Not only the elderly need intensive care: in Italy 40% of the patients in intensive care are below 60.

[phillipseamore]

It's expected that about 550-600 people would have to be sick (not just infected) before their 29 ICU bed's are at capacity.

[kgwgk]

Infected people are more likely to be symptomatic than not, as far as we know (for example from the Diamond Princess).

Even if it was only 10%, should I find reassuring that 6000 people (less than 2% of the population) would have to get infected for the collapse of the healthcare infrastructure to start?

[greedo]

29 ICU beds will not be able to handle the oncoming wave of patients. My city is roughly the same size population as Iceland and only has 900 hospital beds. I don't know how many of those are ICU, or could be converted to makeshift ICU as Italy has been doing.